Law Vermont

[momofthegoons]

Vermont Marijuana Sales Legalization Bill Caught Up In Spat Over Seat Belt Provision

Key Vermont lawmakers announced on Wednesday that they are working to finalize a bill to legalize marijuana sales by the end of this month, but disagreements over an unrelated provision dealing with seat belt policy could jeopardize the plan.

While advocates felt encouraged that a bicameral conference committee convened to hash out differences between versions of the cannabis legislation passed by the House and Senate, the meeting of the six lawmakers became especially contentious when the discussion turned to seat belts.

The House inserted a section in their version of the marijuana bill that would allow police to pull people over for not wearing seat belts—a proposal that’s been a consistent source of controversy in the Vermont legislature. During the bicameral negotiation session, the bill’s Senate sponsor, Sen. Dick Sears (D), called the provision a “deal killer.”

“If the House is going to insist on this provision then we might as well walk away,” he said.

Rep. John Gannon (D), who chairs the House Committee on Government Operations, responded that it’s a “critical position for the House” that “goes to our concern about highway safety.”

Sen. Joe Benning (R) argued that allowing police to pull people over for failing to wear a seat belt would lead to unnecessary police encounters that are likely to have a racially disparate impact.

“A police officer will look for any reason they can to pull over a car. Once you open this door you are going to radically increase the number of stops,” he said. “That’s going to have an impact, especially on people of color.”

That said, if the seat belt dispute and other outstanding issues between the two chambers are ultimately resolved, it could be only a matter of weeks before the cannabis commerce legislation, S. 54, is sent to the governor’s desk. The committee plans to meet again on August 24 and then once more on August 31, which is when members indicated they want to finalize the bill.

Watch the conference committee meeting on the marijuana commerce bill below:



The panel would still have to get authorization to sign the conference report from the Joint Rules Committee. Then the unified proposal would go back to both chambers for a final vote on sending it to Gov. Phil Scott (R).

Vermont legalized possession of up to one ounce of cannabis and cultivation of two plants in 2018, but there is currently no regulatory system in place that allows for retail sales. The marijuana commerce bill cleared both the House and Senate this session, albeit in different forms—necessitating the conference committee negotiations.

Wednesday’s meeting revealed exactly which areas still need to be ironed out between the chambers. Beside the seat belt issue, there were concerns about which regulatory body should be responsible for overseeing the state’s existing medical cannabis program, how tax revenues would be distributed, municipal decision-making on marijuana businesses and reporting requirements for regulators charged with overseeing the industry.

Sears, who chairs the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, called those reporting requirements “ridiculous.”

There was also debate over whether to allow saliva testing of drivers—a policy that the governor is especially interested in enacting.

“I’m pleased that the conference committee was finally able to meet today, and that they were able to resolve several of the outstanding issues,” Dave Silberman, an attorney and pro bono drug policy reform advocate, told Marijuana Moment. “I’m confident that, if conferees continue to negotiate in good faith without interference, the remaining issues will be resolved as well, given that Vermonters overwhelmingly support establishing a regulated cannabis market.”

After the initial discussion, members broke up for private intra-chamber meetings to consider paths forward in the conference negotiations.

When the full bicameral panel reconvened, Sears made a few proposals on behalf of the Senate to move closer to consensus. For example, he said the body would be inclined to drop the Senate’s licensee residency prioritization provisions if the House would stand down on advertising restrictions that are in its bill.

There is still significant disagreement over local control provisions, however, with Sears saying the sides are “nowhere near any agreement.” The House wants to make it so that individual jurisdictions have to proactively opt in to allowing cannabis businesses to operate in their area, whereas the Senate wants businesses to be allowed by default while letting municipalities opt out if they so choose.

Senators also said they need to poll their broader chamber to get a sense of how to proceed on the House’s saliva testing proposal.

House members of the committee had less to say after their private meeting, but they noted that the coronavirus pandemic might warrant revising the bill to push back the timeline for implementation. Gannon also said that the chamber is interested in finding a way to reduce the deficit that will result from initial implementation costs, perhaps by requiring licensing fees to be paid earlier.

“It is encouraging to see that the legislators on this committee appear to understand the importance of moving forward with S. 54,” Matt Simon, New England political director for the Marijuana Policy Project, told Marijuana Moment. “Based on what we heard today, it sounds like there’s a good chance the committee will agree on final details by the end of this month.”

On a separate note, the Senate approved a bill in June that would double the amount of marijuana that can be possessed and grown without the threat of jail time.

Meanwhile, Vermont Democratic Party insiders included planks to decriminalize drug possession and legalize marijuana sales in a draft platform for 2020. The document is still subject to change based on comments from county committees and delegates at the party’s September 12 convention.

 

[momofthegoons]

Vermont Lawmakers Approach Legal Marijuana Sales Agreement Amid Conference Negotiations

Vermont lawmakers are another step closer to finalizing a bill to legalize marijuana sales after finishing a conference committee meeting where they discussed the economics of the proposed system and outstanding issues between the two chambers of the legislature.

While the state legalized possession of up to one ounce of cannabis and cultivation of two plants in 2018, there are currently no regulations in place that allow for retail sales. The cannabis commerce bill cleared both the House and Senate this session, albeit in different forms, and so a six-member bicameral panel is tasked with resolving those differences.

The Senate on Monday agreed to 37 of the House proposals on the legislation, while disagreeing with 12 others. On several measures, it offered compromises that the House will be able to weigh in on when it issues its response next week.

The conference met for the first time last week, with negotiators debating issues such as which regulatory body should be responsible for overseeing the state’s existing medical cannabis program, how tax revenues would be distributed, municipal decision-making on marijuana businesses and reporting requirements for regulators charged with overseeing the industry. At one point, it seemed that disagreement over an unrelated seatbelt enforcement provision could upend the entire bill.

In the week since, the Senate agreed to a number of House provisions—though they remain opposed to certain proposals like making it so individual jurisdictions would have to opt in to the market instead of simply allowing those that don’t want cannabis commerce to opt out. There’s also continuing disagreement over other policies such as House proposals to ban cannabis products containing more than 30 percent THC and allowing roadside testing of saliva for impaired driving.

The House-passed seatbelt provision, which would allow police to pull over drivers for not wearing them, also remains a point of contention.

As a compromise to disagreements on tax issues, the Senate proposed setting the excise tax on retail marijuana sales at 14 percent, with two percent earmarked for local municipalities that allow cannabis businesses to operate in their area. Separately, it also asked that health warnings for marijuana products be developed by regulators “in consultation with the Department of Health and adopted by rule.”

Monday’s meeting largely focused on cannabis tax revenue, with negotiators from both chambers discussing updated estimates about how much the state stands to take in under the House and Senate bill, and how soon. The analyses were conducted by the Joint Fiscal Office (JFO).

For the House version, the mid-estimate of marijuana sales is $31.4 million for fiscal year 2023, $66.8 million for 2024 and $87.6 million for 2025. Projected excise tax revenue is $4.4 million for 2023, $9.4 million for 2024 and $12.3 million for 2025. The House bill would also bring in sales tax revenue ranging from $100,000 in 2022 to $3.8 million in 2025. Those dollars would be designated for an education fund.

Sen. Dick Sears (D), the chief sponsor of the bill, S. 54, and the chair of the body’s Judiciary Committee, said during the meeting that he felt the initial JFO estimates for were too low and that they “way underestimated the income” from cannabis sales. However, those figures were revised and updated shortly after the meeting.

Under the Senate version, JFO projects that the state will see $30.1 million in marijuana purchases for the 2023 fiscal year, $66.8 million for 2024 and $87.6 for 2025. Projected excise tax revenue is $500,000 for 2022, $6.1 million for 2023, $12.7 million for 2024 and $16.4 for 2025.

JFO also created a chart that normalizes other legal cannabis states’ populations and applies that model to the House’s proposed tax rates.

While the conference committee dedicated significant time to talking about economic forecasts for each chamber’s respective bills, Sen. Joe Benning (R) emphasized that tax revenue “was never the main reason for going through this system” of approving cannabis commerce legislation.

“We want a place for people to purchase a safe product that has to be monitored,” he said. “Those are the main objectives for this program, not the number of dollars that we will see.”

Sears also stressed that the reform “is more about consumer safety than it is about revenue.”

The senator also circled back to the seatbelt hangup the panel debated at last’s month meeting. He reiterated that the issue is a non-starter on the Senate side. Saliva testing components would also be a “tough sell,” he said.

“What we have done is given in many areas, we’ve agreed with the House,” he said. “There’s about eight areas where we’re apart. I won’t insult anybody that they’re not major issues, but we are actually much closer than many would believe. So we could get this done.”

Legislators are hoping to come to a resolution and finalize the bill during their next meeting on August 31, when the House will deliver its counter-offer to the Senate. If agreed upon, the panel would still have to get authorization to sign the conference report from the Joint Rules Committee. Then the unified proposal would go back to both chambers for a final vote on sending it to Gov. Phil Scott (R).

“I appreciate the Senate’s work here in agreeing to many of our positions. I do think we have covered a lot of ground and reached agreement on many things,” Rep. John Gannon (D), who chairs the House Committee on Government Operations, said. However, “there are some areas that are deeply important to the House where we’re still in disagreement,” specifically concerning highway safety.

“I think we’re all in agreement what the top priorities are. We’ve come down to six of seven issues that are outstanding,” Sears said. “Whether we can bridge those issues or not, we’ll find out next Monday.”

On a separate note, leaders from the Judiciary Committees in both chambers are moving on a bill to facilitate automatic expungements of prior cannabis convictions. While not included in the tax-and-regulate bill at this stage, it’s possible it could be adopted as lawmakers finish negotiations.

“The announcement that the Senate and House Judiciary leaders have agreed to advance Senator Pearson’s automatic expungement bill is exciting news,” Dave Silberman, an attorney and Democratic nominee for the elected office of high bailiff in Addison County, told Marijuana Moment. “Thousands of Vermonters still carry criminal records for simple possession, and suffer real harm from those records every day.”

“My experience running expungement clinics shows that automatic expungement is the only way to truly repair the harm that decades of prohibition have wrought on Vermonters,” he said.

The Senate approved a bill in June that would double the amount of marijuana that can be possessed and grown without the threat of jail time.

Meanwhile, Vermont Democratic Party insiders included planks to decriminalize drug possession and legalize marijuana sales in a draft platform for 2020. The document is still subject to change based on comments from county committees and delegates at the party’s September 12 convention.

To watch the video of the Zoom Vermont conference committee meeting on marijuana commerce legislation follow title link.

 

[Baron23]

Rep. John Gannon (D), who chairs the House Committee on Government Operations, responded that it’s a “critical position for the House” that “goes to our concern about highway safety.”

Good....then author a fucking Highway Safety Bill, debate it on its own merits, and vote....like in a democracy.

Fucking politicians.

 

[momofthegoons]

Vermont Lawmakers Make Key Compromises On Marijuana Sales Legalization Bill As Deal Nears

A bill to legalize marijuana sales in Vermont in nearing the finish line, with a bicameral conference committee meeting again on Friday to hash out the remaining differences between each chamber’s respective versions of the legislation. And on the same day, a separate Senate-passed bill providing for cannabis expungements advanced in the House.

Importantly, House members of the bicameral legal sales negotiation panel unveiled their counteroffer to a proposed compromise that the Senate side offered last month.

The last few conference meetings have largely focused on the economics of the cannabis commerce bill and how many tax dollars are projected to be allocated to various state programs and funds. Members have also debated policies such as which regulatory body should be responsible for overseeing the state’s existing medical marijuana program as well as reporting requirements for regulators charged with overseeing the industry.

One of the most notable compromises the House made was accepting the Senate’s proposal to shift regulatory control for the medical cannabis to the Cannabis Control Board established under the bill instead of keeping it under the Department of Public Safety.



But there were a series of significant areas of disagreement that persisted. For example, the House maintained its position that individual jurisdictions should have to opt-in to allow marijuana businesses to operate in their area, while the Senate wanted an opt-out provision. The House also stuck with its proposed ban on advertising and restrictions on what types of products will be available to consumers.

The conference has yet to reach a consensus on the tax rate for cannabis sales. And a House-passed provision allowing police to pull people over for failure to wear seatbelts that became an early sticking point remained a point of contention until near the end of Friday’s meeting.

“Is the House unwilling to move on seatbelts? And if that’s the case, then what’s the point in keeping going?” Sen. Dick Sears (D), the chief sponsor of the reform legislation, S. 54, said at the hearing. He also said that he “understands seatbelts are important to” the House speaker and asked what the chamber would want in exchange for taking it out.

Curiously, the House recommended in their counteroffer an amendment that would prohibit people from transporting marijuana products—or alcohol—in any part of a car (even if they were in closed containers) unless they’re stored in a locked glove box or trunk. The Senate side sharply criticized that measure.

The Senate also initially rejected a House provision to add saliva to the “definition of evidentiary test for impaired driving,” and the House kept with that component as well.

Following an initial breakout at which each chamber’s negotiators met separately, the Senate made a series of significant concessions. Senators said they would accept the House’s provisions on jurisdictional opt-in, product restrictions, saliva testing and the advertising ban. But they were only willing to accept those changes if the House agreed to get rid of the seatbelt enforcement component, accept their proposed two percent local option tax and remove the amendment on cannabis transportation in cars.

The House members then broke away to discuss the Senate concessions and, when they came back, said they would be inclined to accept most of the proposal if they were able to keep their version of the tax structure. The Senate side said they would consult with colleagues and consider it over the weekend. Sears said he wanted to put the revisions past the Senate Agriculture Committee and would report back by the middle of next week.

“I’m pleased that the House and Senate were able to reach agreement on almost all of the outstanding issues,” Dave Silberman, an attorney and pro bono drug policy reform advocate, told Marijuana Moment. “I’m particularly grateful that the House conferees were able to find a way to back off their demands for primary seatbelt enforcement as well as the absurd proposal to require Vermonters to strap the 6-pack from the grocery store onto their roof racks.”

Matt Simon, New England political director of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), told Marijuana Moment that it “was very encouraging to see the conference committee reach agreement on nearly all of the outstanding issues.

“Compromise is often difficult, but legislators deserve credit for setting aside their differences and working together to help establish a regulated market for cannabis,” he said. “I’m hopeful that they will finalize the details of the bill at their next meeting.”

Gov. Phil Scott (R), who reluctantly signed a bill legalizing low-level cannabis possession and cultivation in 2018, has expressed some concerns about adding commercial sales but he may be more inclined to allow the tax-and-regulate legislation to take effect with the latest agreement given his interest in allowing saliva-based drug testing.

That said, if the conference committee does reach an agreement next week, the unified proposal would still have to go back to both chambers for final floor votes on sending it to the governor’s desk.

Updated estimates on each chamber’s tax proposals were also published on Friday. The total tax revenue projections are the same, but the Senate’s version shows higher local revenue estimates, while the House proposal would generate more dollars for the general fund.

Sears said near the end of the meeting that he was encouraged to see that the conference is “extremely close” to reaching a deal.

The conference has been meeting on Mondays since the beginning of August, but they opted to convene for a shorter conversation on Friday because of the upcoming Labor Day holiday and their collective desire to finalize the bill sooner rather than later.

Advocates likely appreciate the renewed sense of urgency, as they’ve been waiting months during the coronavirus pandemic for action on the bill since it cleared both the House and Senate earlier this session.

While Vermont legalized possession of up to one ounce of cannabis and cultivation of two plants in 2018, there are currently no regulations in place that allow for retail sales.

Also on Friday, the House Judiciary Committee approved cannabis expungements legislation, and a full chamber vote is expected next week. Simon of MPP said the issue “is a moral imperative for Vermont” and that legislators “should be applauded for taking bold action on this issue.”

Prohibitionist group Smart Approaches To Marijuana is working to get constituents to contact House Speaker Mitzi Johnson (D) to raise concerns about cannabis as the legislature finalizes the legal sales bill—and they recently made the controversial decision to include her personal cell phone number in a mailer sent out to residents in her district.

Separately, the Senate approved a bill in June that would double the amount of marijuana that can be possessed and grown without the threat of jail time.

Meanwhile, Vermont Democratic Party insiders included planks to decriminalize drug possession and legalize marijuana sales in a draft platform for 2020. The document is still subject to change based on comments from county committees and delegates at the party’s September 12 convention.

 

[Baron23]

Wow, Vermont House sounds like a barrel of idiots while its the Senate that seems much more reasonable.

 

[momofthegoons]

Vermont House Approves Marijuana Expungement And Decriminalization Expansion Bill

The Vermont House gave preliminary approval on Friday to a bill that would provide for automatic expungements of marijuana convictions and allow people to possess and grow more cannabis without the threat of jail time than is currently allowed.

Under the proposal, those with convictions for marijuana possession of up to two ounces, four mature plants and eight immature plants prior to January 2021 would have their records automatically cleared. Those who receive expungements would be notified by mail.

The House voted to advance the bill in a 113-10 vote, and final third reading consideration to send it to the Senate is expected next week.

While the state legalized possession of up to one ounce and cultivation of two plants in 2018, possession of a second ounce or third plant is currently considered a misdemeanor. That would change if the new bill is enacted.

The legislation states that, starting in 2021, people with simple cannabis possession convictions would also be allowed to deny that record in employment, license or civil rights applications—regardless of whether they’ve received a notice that their expungement has been processed.

That provision was added by the House Judiciary Committee, which got jurisdiction over the legislation following Senate approval of the bill in May. Language from a separate Senate expungements bill was included in the legislation and S. 234 cleared the panel last week. After the expected final approval by the House, the proposal will go back to the Senate for concurrence before being sent to the desk of Gov. Phil Scott (R).

The legislation would additionally expand state law to decriminalize possession of under two ounces of cannabis—just like a separate bill that cleared the Senate earlier this year would do. That Senate-passed bill would also decriminalize possession of a fourth mature plant, while the new House proposal only covers up to three mature plants and six immature ones.

People who are caught possessing these decriminalized amounts would face up to a $100 fine for a first offense, $200 for a second offense and a $500 for subsequent offenses.



“It’s gratifying to see that the House and Senate have finally come together in support of automatic expungement,” Matt Simon, New England political director of the Marijuana Policy Project, told Marijuana Moment. “The legislature did a great thing when it legalized cannabis in 2018, but cannabis prohibition will not truly be over in Vermont until criminal records are expunged and an equitable market is established. Vermont has a chance to take a huge step forward on cannabis policy if both S. 234 and S. 54 become law.”

This development comes as legislators and activists continue to push for the legalization of marijuana sales in the state.

Both the House and Senate approved legislation to create such a tax-and-regulate model for cannabis. A bicameral conference committee, which has been appointed to merge the differences between the chambers’ bills, has met three times so far—and members are close to finalizing the proposal, with only the issue of tax rates remaining outstanding at the end of last week’s meeting of the panel.

The Senate approved S. 54, the cannabis sales legalization bill, with a veto-proof majority last year during the first half of the two-year legislative session. The House voted in favor of its version of the legislation in February.

Meanwhile, Vermont Democratic Party insiders included planks to decriminalize drug possession and legalize marijuana sales in a draft platform for 2020. The document is still subject to change based on comments from county committees and delegates at the party convention on Saturday.

Outside of Vermont, both chambers of the Virginia state legislature this week approved bills to help people clear prior marijuana convictions from their records.

 

[momofthegoons]

Vermont Lawmakers Finally Reach Deal On Marijuana Sales Legalization Bill

A Vermont panel of House and Senate negotiators have reached a final compromise deal on a bill to tax and regulate marijuana sales in the state.

While Vermont legalized possession of up to one ounce of cannabis and cultivation of two plants in 2018, there are currently no regulations in place that allow for retail sales. That would change under S. 54, which previously cleared both chambers of the legislature before being sent to the bicameral conference committee to reconcile differences.

The panel has held a series of meetings on the legislation in recent weeks, with members negotiating key provisions such as tax rates, local control, saliva testing and advertising. Each side offered a bevy proposals and counterproposals in the final housrs of negotiations before reaching an agreement late Tuesday. Sen. Jeannette White (D), a conferee, confirmed to Marijuana Moment that the conference report was signed by all six members of the panel.

Here are the main compromises on remaining issues reached by the bicameral group of lawmakers:

-The excise tax rate on marijuana will be set at 14 percent, in addition to the state’s six percent sales tax. The Senate agreed to give up a proposal to have two percent of that 14 percent go to local jurisdictions; instead, those municipalities would receive funds through license and distributor fees.

-In order to conduct a saliva test for suspected cannabis-impaired driving, police would need to obtain a search warrant and the sample couldn’t be taken at roadside. The Senate opposed saliva testing, despite Gov. Phil Scott’s (R) insistence on it, but conceded on the condition that the House drop unrelated language it wanted about seatbelt enforcement.

-The House agreed to drop a section that would have outright prohibited cannabis businesses from advertising. Regulators will work with the state attorney general and health department to come up with rules for advertising.

“There are issues that I disagree with, others I agree with—such is the nature of compromise. The one issue I continue to disagree with is how we are sending revenue to the towns,” White told Marijuana Moment. “The Senate proposal was that the towns that host any type of establishment should share in the revenue. The House insisted on fees which will be added to the establishments thus increasing the ultimate cost to the customers.”

“But I signed on to the report because it finally starts a regulated and taxed system in Vermont—years after working on it,” she said. “So if it gets passed we will have something to tweak over the next couple years, if it doesn’t pass we have nothing to tweak. So I will continue to work on this next session.”

Sen. Dick Sears (D), the chairman of his chamber’s Judiciary Committee and the lead sponsor of S.54, told The Bennington Banner, which first reported on Tuesday’s agreement, that the bill is “not perfect,” but there’s been “a lot of compromise, a lot of give and take on both sides to get to a place where we could reach agreement.”

The bill will now head back to the House and Senate floors for final votes on the compromise language before being sent to the governor’s desk. Scott hasn’t indicated whether he’s supportive of the newly revised legislation, but a top legislator said earlier this year that he’s been “at the table” in earlier negotiations and has expressed interest in using some tax revenue to fund an after-school program he’s pursuing. That said, he only reluctantly signed the legalization of possession and homegrow into law after vetoing an earlier version, and it’s not clear if the road safety provisions in the final commercialization bill will be enough to satisfy his concerns.

S. 54 also contains some social equity provisions such as prioritizing marijuana business licenses for minorities, women and people disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs. An independent regulatory commission would additionally be tasked with promoting small business participation in the market.

A new Cannabis Control Commission would be responsible for issuing licenses for retailers, growers, manufacturers, wholesalers and labs. The body would also take over regulation of the state’s existing medical cannabis industry from the Department of Public Safety .

A 30 percent THC limit would be imposed on cannabis flower, while oils could contain up to 60 percent THC. Flavored vape cartridges would be banned.

Local jurisdictions would have to proactively opt in to allow marijuana businesses to operate in their area—a concession made by the Senate, which instead wanted to require towns that didn’t want cannabis commerce to opt out. Municipalities would also be able to establish their own regulations and municipal licensing requirements.

A timeline for the legislation states that it would formally take effect on October 1, 2020—but regulators would then have to make a series of determinations about rules and licensing before retail sales would launch. Dispensary licenses would have to be issued on or before October 1, 2022.

“This was a difficult compromise for legislators, who faced pressure from many different directions,” Matt Simon, New England political director for the Marijuana Policy Project, told Marijuana Moment. “We applaud them for sticking with the task and completing it. The need for a regulated cannabis market in Vermont has never been more urgent, and this bill has come too far to fail—it would be a terrible shame if Vermont doesn’t finish the job and pass S. 54 into law.”

The bill is on the House notice calendar for Wednesday, meaning a floor vote could be taken as soon as Thursday. After that, the Senate will take up its final consideration, likely sending the proposal to Scott’s desk sometime next week.

Outside of the cannabis sales legalization bill, the House last week gave preliminary approval to separate legislation that would provide for automatic expungements of marijuana convictions and allow people to possess and grow more cannabis without the threat of jail time than is currently allowed. It’s now on the Senate notice calendar, which allows for a vote as early as Thursday.

 

[momofthegoons]

​

Vermont Bill To Legalize Marijuana Sales In Question After Governor Cites Racial Justice Objections​

The governor of Vermont on Tuesday signaled that he might veto a bill to legalize marijuana sales in the state, citing concerns about whether the legislation that has been sent to his desk adequately addresses racial equity.

Gov. Phil Scott (R) had previously centered his criticism of the policy change on issues such as impaired driving, taxes and local control. Some advocates suspect that his newly expressed worries about racial justice amount to a cop-out to justify rejecting the reform bill after legislators revised it to largely account for the other issues he’d raised.

The comments came during a gubernatorial debate between Scott and Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (D), a vocal advocate for cannabis reform.

“In terms of the pot bill, I haven’t made up my mind about that. I have received a lot of groups—racial equity groups—that are asking me to veto it,” Scott said. “I was leaning towards letting it go, but I’m really questioning that at this point. I want to hear and listen from them.”

He also criticized the lieutenant governor, saying that as the presiding officer of the Senate, he should’ve been able to hear from these groups to get their input on the bill. Zuckerman said that the logistical challenges of legislating remotely via video conferences amid the coronavirus pandemic created difficulties in ensuring more voices could be represented the process. But he argued that the marijuana commercialization bill, S. 54, does in fact promote social equity.



“There are many provisions in the bill that do address support for minority- and women-owned businesses. And there’s definitely more work to do,” Zuckerman said at the debate, which was hosted by VTDigger. “You know as well as I, you often don’t get everything in your efforts, and there’s more work in this.” He added that separate companion legislation to automate expungements for those with prior marijuana convictions was also designed with racial justice in mind.

“Sometimes the efforts are put into multiple bills, as you know, and it’s easy to take advantage of sort of how the system can be confusing for people to maybe not always know what’s going on,” he said. “We know in the next administration, we’ll have to work to improve on that bill. But to delay it for another year is economic opportunity delayed, it is also criminal justice reform delayed, and we need to be moving forward and do more in the future.”

Scott previously alluded to organizations he’s recently heard from who opposed S. 54 during a press briefing earlier this month, but he didn’t specify that they were expressing concerns about racial equity. He also said that he was generally pleased with the process that the legislation went through as a bicameral conference committee worked to resolve differences between versions of the legalization bill that had previously passed the House and Senate.

In a letter sent to the governor last week, the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance argued that the bill “fails to address in any significant way the devastating historical social and economic impact of marijuana on African Americans, the current impact of systemic racism on the cannabis industry or the disadvantages of emerging growers!”

“In short, Black people and small farmers are not made whole and fail to economically benefit from this bill,” it states. “Please veto this policy to give us the opportunity to ensure that it addresses harm and provides everyone an opportunity to thrive.”

The Vermont Growers Association similarly voiced opposition to S. 54, writing in a recent statement that the bill “will make life harder for everyday Vermonters by artificially limiting economic development opportunities by favoring established players and creating unreasonable barriers to market entry for new participants.”

The organizations Justice For All, NOFA-VT, Rural Vermont and Trace have also put out statements against the proposal.

With these latest comments from the governor, advocates for the bill are frustrated that it seems that process and the final product will have been for naught if the governor vetoes it.

Vermont legalized possession of up to one ounce of cannabis and cultivation of two plants in 2018, but there are currently no regulations in place that allow for retail sales.

Dave Silberman, a pro bono drug policy reform advocate, told Marijuana Moment that the governor is “desperate to find any politically viable excuse to veto the cannabis regulation bill, now that the legislature has adequately addressed all of the areas he previously claimed to be concerned with: that towns opt in, rather than opt-out, of allowing cannabis retailers, that police be able to deploy saliva tests to detect impairment, and that tax revenues be allocated to prevention and after-school programming.”

“S.54 and the related expungement bill (S.234) lay a strong foundation for continued work to repair the damage done by 80 years of prohibition,” he said. “That Gov. Scott and his team never once mentioned racial equity as an area he was so much as aware of, let alone concerned with, until after the bill was finalized, says it all: he is shamelessly using racial justice as a smokescreen.”

Matt Simon, New England political director of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), told Marijuana Moment that “from a racial justice perspective, cannabis prohibition has been a disastrous public policy, and Vermont’s limited legalization law is only a modest improvement.”

“The legislators who developed S. 54 clearly intend to replace prohibition with an equitable, regulated industry—such as by prioritizing licensing for minority-owned businesses,” he said. “Further advocacy will be needed to ensure that the bill lives up to its promises, but the status quo is unacceptable and Vermont urgently needs to move forward.”

In an op-ed published last week, MPP Executive Director Steve Hawkins, who is Black, wrote that if both the tax-and-regulate and expungement bills are signed into law, “Vermont would go from having the worst legalization law in the country to one of the more forward-thinking.”

“Vermont’s status quo is untenable,” he said. “If our movement had insisted on every measure being perfect, Vermonters might still be criminals for possessing cannabis—medical or otherwise. S.54 and S.234 represent incredible progress for consumer safety, Vermont’s economy, and racial and social justice. They deserve Vermonters’ support and Scott’s signature.”

Under the cannabis commerce bill, a new Cannabis Control Commission would be responsible for issuing licenses for retailers, growers, manufacturers, wholesalers and labs. The body would also take over regulation of the state’s existing medical cannabis industry from the Department of Public Safety .

A 30 percent THC limit would be imposed on cannabis flower, while oils could contain up to 60 percent THC. Flavored vape cartridges would be banned.

Local jurisdictions would have to proactively opt in to allow marijuana businesses to operate in their area. Municipalities would also be able to establish their own regulations and municipal licensing requirements.

A timeline for the legislation states that it would formally take effect on October 1, 2020—but regulators would then have to make a series of determinations about rules and licensing before retail sales would launch. Dispensary licenses would have to be issued on or before October 1, 2022.

A fiscal analysis on the final bill projects that Vermont will generate between $13.3 million and $24.2 million in annual cannabis tax revenue by Fiscal Year 2025. Licensing fees will lead to additional funds for the state, but the regulatory board created by the legislation will set those levels at a later date. For now, the Joint Fiscal Office estimates the fees could lead to another $650,000 in revenue every year. Municipalities hosting marijuana businesses will also be able to levy additional local fees.

The expungements bill that is also being transmitted to his desk would make it so those with convictions for marijuana possession of up to two ounces, four mature plants and eight immature plants prior to January 2021 would have their records automatically cleared. Those who receive expungements would be notified by mail.

It’s not clear what will happen if Scott vetoes the legal cannabis sales bill. It passed the Senate with a veto-proof margin, but fell shy of that threshold in the House. The governor vetoed an earlier version of the noncommercial legalization bill in 2018 before negotiating changes with lawmakers that made him comfortable with signing a revised bill.

 

[momofthegoons]

​

Vermont Governor Again Voices Concerns On Marijuana Sales Legalization Bill, Suggesting Possible Veto​

The governor of Vermont again deflected a question about whether he intends to sign a bill to legalize marijuana sales in the state, suggesting that new racial justice concerns could lead him to veto it and make the legislature take the issue up anew during the next session that begins in January.

During a debate with his challenger, Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (D), on Thursday, Gov. Phil Scott (R) said that he needs time to reflect on concerns expressed by certain racial justice groups who are urging him to veto the tax-and-regulate bill that officially arrived on his desk earlier in the day.

The governor has until Wednesday to sign or veto the legislation, and if he takes no action by then it will become law without his signature.

The House and Senate passed differing versions of the bill, S. 54, earlier this session and both approved a new version last month that was put together by a bicameral conference committee that negotiated differences between the two chambers’ proposals. Throughout the process, lawmakers took pains to ensure that Scott’s previously stated concerns with the reform measure—namely around impaired driving, taxes and local control—were largely accounted for before transmitting it to his office.

But while the governor said last month that he was impressed by the legislative process that the bill went through.

“I haven’t been philosophically opposed to the regulation of marijuana, but I had some certain conditions that had to be met in order for me to sign it. They have come a long ways,” Scott reiterated during the debate. “They aren’t perfect, they aren’t everything that I wanted, but they’ve come a long ways.”

But for the second time in the span of just a few days, the governor voiced news concerns about the bill. He also brought up the social equity concerns during a separate debate with Zuckerman on Tuesday.

“The only hesitancy I have at this point is we have had some racial equity groups—more than one—contact our office and urge us to veto this legislation because they don’t feel it was enough for them, they don’t feel as though they were heard,” he said in the latest debate. “I’ll reflect on that, but I haven’t signed it yet. I think we have until mid-next week to do so.”

To watch the candidates discuss the marijuana legislation, click here and scroll down to the twelfth clip.

Some advocates suspect Scott may be simply picking up an excuse to lay the groundwork for a veto, as he never raised racial justice issues during the many months that lawmakers were debating and negotiating the cannabis commercialization legislation.

To be sure, several racial justice groups and growers associations have voiced opposition to the legislation, arguing that it doesn’t go far enough to promote equity in the industry.

But as Zuckerman pointed out in the debate, an imperfect bill can be improved upon, and the legislature has plenty of time to finesse the details before legal cannabis sales launch. He also noted that the bill already does contain social equity provisions such as prioritizing women- and minority-owned businesses. Plus, a separate companion bill providing for automatic expungements of prior marijuana convictions is also on its way to Scott’s desk.

The moderator pressed the governor, stating that the bill could be improved and asking whether he’s “inclined” to sign it.

“I want to reflect on some of the concerns. Racial equity is important to all of us,” he said. “I want to reflect them on what they’re saying versus what actually happened in the bill. And again, we can address this come January and, as with a lot of legislation, it will need some help, assistance and repair.”

That last remark highlights that a veto at this point would likely mean lawmakers would need to start the cannabis sales legalization process all over again with a new bill during the next session that starts early in 2021. That said, the negotiations on the current proposal were fairly comprehensive and involved buy-in from numerous committees, so the legislature would potentially be able to move a new bill with additional racial equity components added through the process and to the governor’s desk on a relatively rapid basis.

Zuckerman, meanwhile, said that if he were governor, “I would certainly sign the bill.”

“This has been a long time coming to bring the underground market aboveboard, to work to reduce access to youth and to make sure that what is out there is a cleaner product so we don’t have contaminated or adulterated product out there,” he said. “We could use the resources being of both economic development but also for after-school programs, as I believe is in the bill, for youth prevention of this as well as other drugs.”

Former state Rep. Kiah Morris (D), who is Black, put out a statement on Friday that encourages residents to contact the governor’s office and urge him to sign the legislation. She also made the case that the proposal does advance racial justice.



Under the cannabis commerce bill, a new Cannabis Control Commission would be responsible for issuing licenses for retailers, growers, manufacturers, wholesalers and labs. The body would also take over regulation of the state’s existing medical cannabis industry from the Department of Public Safety .

A 30 percent THC limit would be imposed on cannabis flower, while oils could contain up to 60 percent THC. Flavored vape cartridges would be banned.

Local jurisdictions would have to proactively opt in to allow marijuana businesses to operate in their area. Municipalities would also be able to establish their own regulations and municipal licensing requirements.

A timeline for the legislation states that it would formally take effect on October 1, 2020—but regulators would then have to make a series of determinations about rules and licensing before retail sales would launch. Dispensary licenses would have to be issued on or before October 1, 2022.

A fiscal analysis on the final bill projects that Vermont will generate between $13.3 million and $24.2 million in annual cannabis tax revenue by Fiscal Year 2025. Licensing fees will lead to additional funds for the state, but the regulatory board created by the legislation will set those levels at a later date. For now, the Joint Fiscal Office estimates the fees could lead to another $650,000 in revenue every year. Municipalities hosting marijuana businesses will also be able to levy additional local fees.

The expungements bill that is also being transmitted to Scott’s desk would make it so those with convictions for marijuana possession of up to two ounces, four mature plants and eight immature plants prior to January 2021 would have their records automatically cleared. Those who receive expungements would be notified by mail.

It’s not clear what will happen if Scott vetoes the legal cannabis sales bill. It passed the Senate with a veto-proof margin, but fell shy of that threshold in the House. The governor vetoed an earlier version of the noncommercial legalization bill in 2018 before negotiating changes with lawmakers that made him comfortable with signing a revised bill.

 

[momofthegoons]

​

Vermont Governor Still Hasn’t Decided On Legal Marijuana Sales Bill On Eve Of Signature Deadline​

With just one day left to decide the fate of a bill to legalize marijuana sales in Vermont, Gov. Phil Scott (R) says he’s still not sure what he’s going to do with the proposal that’s been on his desk since last week.

During a press briefing on Tuesday, the governor was asked for a status update on his thinking about the legislation. He’s demurred several times on the question in recent days, stating that he needs to take into account newly expressed concerns from certain racial justice groups that have reached out to him.

“Obviously I have until tomorrow to come to a conclusion on that and I’m still weighing all the options and moving in that direction,” Scott said, adding that he’s “weighing what [legislators have] done, again, in good faith.”

The governor has previously commended the legislature for their approach to S. 54. Differing versions of the bill passed each chamber before being reconciled in a bicameral conference committee last month. The legislature then approved the finalized proposal and sent it to Scott’s desk.

“They did move forward in a lot of areas that I had concerns about, but it still isn’t exactly what I’d like to see and there are some shortcomings,” he said. “So, again, I’ll be reflecting on that over the next 24 hours and then coming to a conclusion tomorrow.”

The governor’s recently stated concerns about alleged racial justice-related inadequacies in the cannabis commerce bill is a new narrative that he hadn’t expressed until after it passed the legislature in its final form. Previously, his criticism centered on issues such as impaired driving, taxes and local control—areas where lawmakers made concessions to Scott’s positions.

Advocates are skeptical about the new messaging development and question whether the governor is simply looking for a cop-out to justify vetoing the bill. He rejected an earlier version of a bill to legalize low-level possession and home cultivation on a noncommercial basis in 2018 before negotiating changes with lawmakers that made him comfortable with signing revised legislation.

Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (D), who’s running against Scott for the governorship, stressed in a debate last week that while he agrees with the sentiment that more needs to be done to ensure racial justice, an imperfect bill can be improved upon, and the legislature has plenty of time to finesse the details before legal cannabis sales launch.

He also noted that separate legislation providing for automatic expungements of prior cannabis convictions would complement the restorative justice provisions of the tax-and-regulate bill. That proposal has also been formally transmitted to Scott’s desk, and he has until Monday to act on it.

A coalition of Vermont civil rights and criminal justice reform groups including the state’s ACLU chapter released a statement on Sunday that says while they share concerns about the limitations of the social equity components of the marijuana commerce bill, they feel it can be built upon and want the governor to sign it, in addition to the expungements legislation.

Under the cannabis commerce bill, a new Cannabis Control Commission would be responsible for issuing licenses for retailers, growers, manufacturers, wholesalers and labs. The body would also take over regulation of the state’s existing medical cannabis industry from the Department of Public Safety .

A 30 percent THC limit would be imposed on cannabis flower, while oils could contain up to 60 percent THC. Flavored vape cartridges would be banned.

Local jurisdictions would have to proactively opt in to allow marijuana businesses to operate in their area. Municipalities would also be able to establish their own regulations and municipal licensing requirements.

A timeline for the legislation states that it would formally take effect on October 1, 2020—but regulators would then have to make a series of determinations about rules and licensing before retail sales would launch. Dispensary licenses would have to be issued on or before October 1, 2022.

A fiscal analysis on the final bill projects that Vermont will generate between $13.3 million and $24.2 million in annual cannabis tax revenue by Fiscal Year 2025. Licensing fees will lead to additional funds for the state, but the regulatory board created by the legislation will set those levels at a later date. For now, the Joint Fiscal Office estimates the fees could lead to another $650,000 in revenue every year. Municipalities hosting marijuana businesses will also be able to levy additional local fees.

The separate expungements bill would make it so those with convictions for marijuana possession of up to two ounces, four mature plants and eight immature plants prior to January 2021 would have their records automatically cleared. Those who receive expungements would be notified by mail.

It’s not clear what will happen if Scott vetoes the legal cannabis sales bill. It passed the Senate with a veto-proof margin, but fell shy of that threshold in the House. If he neither signs nor vetoes the bill by the end of the day on Wednesday, it will become law.

 

[momofthegoons]

Vermont Becomes Eleventh State to Legalize Adult-Use Marijuana Sales​

Republican Governor Phil Scott today announced that he would permit legislation, Senate Bill 54, to become law establishing rules and regulations overseeing the commercial production and retail sale of marijuana to adults. The measure will become law absent the Governor’s signature.

Vermont lawmakers depenalized the possession and cultivation of small quantities of marijuana by adults in 2018, but that law did not legalize any commercial activities involving either cannabis production or sales. Ten states currently regulate adult-use marijuana sales.

NORML State Policies Coordinator Carly Wolf said: “Ten of the eleven states that have legalized adult-use marijuana possession have also wisely regulated the retail cannabis market; until today, Vermont had been the sole exception.

“This comprehensive legislation was debated and amended over a period of several months by members of both chambers, and it is supported by a majority of Vermont voters. Senate Bill 54 represents an opportunity to bring common-sense controls to the adult-use marijuana marketplace, which is currently unregulated, unlicensed, and untaxed. While the law, as written, is not perfect, we are confident that lawmakers will continue to further amend these proposed rules and regulations accordingly in a manner that both prioritizes public safety as well as the needs of entrepreneurs looking to enter into this space. This is a victory for those who wish to disrupt the illicit marketplace and move forward with an above-ground, regulated cannabis marketplace.”

Senate Bill 54 establishes rules and taxation rates governing the licensed commercial production and sale of cannabis and cannabis products to adults. Under the plan, retail products would be subject to a 14 percent excise tax, in addition to the state’s six percent general sales tax. The potency of herbal cannabis products will be capped at 30 percent THC while concentrates will be limited to no more than 60 percent THC. Products cannot be packaged in a manner that appears appealing to children. Prior to the operation of any licensed cannabis facility, a municipality will need to hold a vote to in favor of permitting commercial activities within their locality.

The new law takes effect on October 1, 2020. However, regulators will not begin licensing cannabis-related businesses and activities until the spring of 2022.

It has also been reported that the Governor signed separate legislation today, Senate Bill 234, which facilitates the automatic review and expungement of low-level marijuana convictions. That law takes effect on January 1, 2021. The measure is expected to result in the expungement of the criminal records of over 10,000 people convicted of possessing two ounces or less of marijuana. Separate provisions in the bill reduce the penalties for offenses involving the possession of more than one ounce but less than two ounces of marijuana and/or the cultivation of three plants to a civil fine.

 

[Baron23]

Petitions seek to remove Vermont's THC caps ​

Recreational cannabis has been legal for retail sale in Vermont for almost a year, but the work to finetune many of the regulations around the new industry continue.​

One of the restrictions that consumers and businesses alike are still challenging are THC caps.


Geoffrey Pizzutillo, executive director of the Vermont Growers Association, called the issue "a sharp thorn in the side of the Vermont cannabis industry."


"Licensees and customers alike are eager to remove the caps from flower and concentrates," he said.


THC, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, is the primary psychoactive cannabinoid extracted from the cannabis plant.


Bernie Silva, policy director at VGA, has been spearheading a multi-yearlong campaign to end the ban on high-THC products. He's a licensed manufacturer and cultivator.


Flower is capped for THC at 30 percent for flower and 60 percent for manufactured concentrates. Flower is allowed to go over the cap by 20 percent, so up to 36 percent, whereas manufactured concentrates can only go over by 10 percent for a total of 66 percent, before going to market. No cap exists for vaporized products.


A petition from the VGA with more than 246 signatures from within the industry calls for the Vermont Legislature to remove the THC caps in Act 164 of 2020, stating that the caps "push away businesses and consumers" from the state's marketplace.


"Concentrates and concentrate-based products account for upwards of 50 percent of an adult-use marketplace in most legal states," the petition reads. "Vermont is expected to generate over $100 million in total sales from its adult-use marketplace. If the THC caps remain, a significant representation of Vermont's emerging market will succumb to onerous regulations our neighboring states won't have."


The petition describes the caps as "arbitrary" and having "no legislative or science-based precedent." Businesses say the caps "will have a profound impact on the safety, cleanliness, and general availability of concentrates and concentrate-based products for consumers in the Vermont adult-use marketplace and encourage local businesses to stay in the illicit market."


A consumer petition from the VGA with more than 684 signatures calls for an end to the caps as well.


"I want legal access to safe, clean, unadulterated cannabis flower, concentrates, and the many concentrate-based products consumers enjoy in an adult-use marketplace, such as edibles, tinctures, salves, topicals, and more," the petition states.


Vermont and Connecticut are the only two states in the U.S. with THC caps. In the beginning days of Vermont's recreational marketplace, cultivators wanted to get started, even if they had to live with the THC cap.


"But I think over this last year and coming up, cultivators are realizing how hamstrung they are in terms of what they do with their products beyond flower," Silva said, blaming the caps for "this really highly inflated value for flower and preventing manufacturing from taking off."


Silva noted people are afraid to send product to a third party processor — if THC levels are too high they might have to take an extra step to bring them down and incur additional expenses. He said Tier 2, which offers the most accessible licensing fees for cultivators in Vermont, would have "a lot more runway to create products" if they need not worry about THC caps.


Two years ago, a bill that included removing the 60 percent cap passed unanimously in the Senate then the provision died in the House of Representatives. Last year, a bill on eliminating the cap had one hearing.


"Generally the consensus was the Vermont Medical Society has been lobbying the Department of Health and the governor into preventing the caps from being removed," he said.


A spokesperson for Gov. Phil Scott didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the governor's perspective on the issue.


With the second year of the new biennium coming up, the VGA aims to make the issue front and center.


"It's going to be all hands on deck," Silva said. "This affects every level of the industry because it gives cultivators so many more options in getting rid of what they're selling. It's basically byproduct now."


Silva said trim from pot has desirable material that can be used to create oils but it's currently being treated as waste.


"Some companies are savvier than others and work around it," he said. "But the reality is that limitation still exists."


Silva said he appreciates the Cannabis Control Board's "understanding of the economics behind this."


"They get how much work it's causing them to monitor these things when it's something that should be out of their control," he said. "I think the CCB has done a great job of walking back some of the corporate-style restrictions that were in the original bill."


CCB Chairman James Pepper said the board has been asked to write multiple reports about whether the cap should remain or be lifted. Where the VGA focuses on economics and access to products, he said, the board is concerned with public safety and consumer safety.


"We always come at things from: it is better to have a regulated product than an unregulated product," he said.


A prohibition on high concentrates doesn't eliminate the demand for them, Pepper said. He pointed out products not available in retail stores can be purchased online and have the potential for being dangerous.


To achieve a 60 percent cap with concentrates, Pepper noted the easiest way to remove all biomass involves putting in less pure adulterants and fillers.


"We don't know the effects of smoking this stuff," he said. "Trying to explain this and trying to move away from the fear of this is tough. The medical society has rally drawn a line in the sand that they don't want to see high solid concentrates in this market and their opinion carries a lot of weight."


The Vermont Medical Society has shared reports with the board that chronic cannabis use can be correlated with suicide ideation and schizophrenia. Pepper said it's difficult to draw anything but correlations because cannabis can't be researched the way other pharmaceuticals can.


A different advertising structure for the high solid concentrates or having them kept behind the counter at stores are potential projects.


"That's where we're trying to find some common ground and trying to address some of the concerns being raised," Pepper said. "It has not gotten any political traction. I know this is a hot-button issue."


Pepper said the board would rely on the Department of Health to help write warnings or create another flyer given out specifically to customers after a sale of high solid concentrates, as the department has written the point-of-sale flyer handed out now.


"I just don't see it happening any time soon unfortunately," he said.


Hope Aguilera, co-owner of Low Key Alchemy, described this year being one of learning for the state as it rolled out its retail marketplace. She said she hopes Vermont can figure out the THC cap issue.


Low Key Alchemy, a Tier 2 manufacturer based in Barre, creates cannabis hash and hash rosin extracts using an ice water extraction process. The company operates a processing facility, partnering with organic and local small farms.


"We're very grassroots," Aguilera said. "We're owned by two mixed race couples. It's just us. We don't have any big investor."


Hash happens to fall right at the 60 percent THC mark so it feels like the cap "targets solventless," Aguilera said. She doesn't understand why vaporized products aren't capped.


If the concern is about safety, Aguilera said, vape cartridges are much more accessible. To dab hash, a glass rig and torch or expensive heating apparatus is needed.


Finding good rosin or hash in retail stores is more difficult in Vermont.


"There's only like two of us on the shelf," Aguilera said. "At any given time, it can be really hard to find."


Aguilera noted testing can get expensive when products require multiple tests before they go to market. That cost gets handed down to consumers along with others such as banking and insurance, which is difficult to obtain in the cannabis industry.


Aguilera doesn't want to see the industry ruled by big corporations.


"I think we in Vermont should really focus on craft, on small batch, on sustainable practices," she said. "The THC cap, all it does is hurt small businesses that can't spend as much money on endless testing, on endless material."