Vermont Senators
With marijuana legalization being pushed through the legislature this year, what has been obscured is the impact this current bill would have on existing local economies.
The recent Rand Report estimated annual consumption of marijuana in Vermont at up to 55,000 pounds. The report fails to define where all that marijuana comes from. While it is certain some is imported from other states, it is also a given that a large percentage of the marijuana currently consumed in Vermont is grown locally.
While proponents of the current bill often portray these local growers as part of a fiendish “black market”, in truth it is better described as a neighborhood market that has developed organically in our communities thanks to the hard work and perseverance of home growers. If anything, the availability of locally grown high quality marijuana in Vermont has stifled the real black marketeers trying to import cartel products. The Rand report estimates this economy at upwards of $225 million a year. To put that number in perspective; Vermont’s craft beer industry is currently pegged at $200 million and the maple syrup industry at $50 million. So it is clear, the marijuana economy is currently very important to the welfare of many Vermonters.
It is our belief that most of the cannabis currently cultivated in Vermont is for personal use. But many small growers give, sell or barter their excess to friends and neighbors. If they make some money they spend it locally; to pay their taxes, fix their cars and maybe to buy Christmas presents for the kids.
These home growers, spread throughout the state, have created a substantial part of the estimated $225 million market. So it is important to understand that the current legalization bill working its way through the legislature will continue to brand home growers as criminals. Worse, twenty-five percent of the tax revenue in the bill is earmarked to law enforcement in order to protect the proposed state regulated monopoly.
But even more devastating is how the current bill, as written, envisions transferring this $225 million per year out of our most at-risk local communities and into the hands of a small number of state licensed growers. What are our public servants thinking?
On one hand they seem to be blinded by decades of lies and propaganda aimed at demonizing cannabis and those who grow it. On the other the governor and the legislature are clearly going against the needs of local communities in favor of larger scale businesses. Have they forgotten the basic fact that raising everyone’s income will generate more growth and tax revenue than by making a few rich people richer?
Certainly the lessons of history are being ignored. No matter what draconian penalties the legislature threatens its citizens with, Vermont home growers, used to decades of living a Robin Hood existence, will continue to outwit the Sheriff of Nottingham and his men. They will go on cultivating marijuana surreptitiously, for their personal, social and medical use, providing the large industrial grows of the state run monopoly with competition in quality, price and purity.
A more intelligent solution for everyone involved is a bill that, instead of threatening Vermonters, harnesses all their talent and passion. It would recognize that our land and climate are eminently suitable to growing this valuable crop that is renewable and sustainable. Instead of trying to rub out this part of the local economy with helicopters and more police, it should leverage it, substantially increasing tax revenue and lowering law enforcement costs.
The only losers under a fair and intelligent law will be the one percent of Vermonters who would most benefit from the bill currently before the legislature. Instead of being given a monopoly by the state, they should be considered equal to all other Vermonters.
The legalization of marijuana in Vermont is a once in a lifetime chance to make a powerful economic opportunity available to all; not just a few. A wise and fair bill will bring Vermont home cultivators into the light rather than relegating them to the shadows. It will leave the wealth being currently generated right where it belongs, in our local communities. It would recognize that the new businesses would be locally accountable to the community and it’s youth.
We know how difficult it is to change a bill after it has passed. Our medical marijuana program was passed twelve years ago, and our veterans still can’t use it for PTSD. We must get it right the first time.
Freedom loving, egalitarian Vermonters, expect you to craft a bill that keeps and creates local jobs. A bill that would include small producers, cottage and family owned businesses in this new $225 million market. A bill that does not limit the number of any licenses. A bill that does not punish Vermonters for growing marijuana for their personal, social and medical use. A bill that allows Vermonters to develop Vermont brand artisanal products from their homes, and bring them to market, and sell directly to their customers This would be the Vermont way.
We urge you to vote for your neighbors not against them. Do not support a monopolist bill.
Stuart Savel and Rick Veitch
Vermont Home Grown
February 9, 2016
One response
This was sent around as a response from one senator, Dick Sears:
” In response to the recent email from Stuart Savel and Rick Veitch
Dear Senators,
Any effort to legalize marijuana in Vermont must comply with the Cole memo and the principles articulated in the Governors State of the State Address.
The Cole memo provides guidance to federal prosecutors concerning marijuana enforcement under the Controlled Substances Act.
The recent email from Stuart Savel and Rick Veitch of Vermont Home Grown ignores the reality of the both the Cole memo and the five essential elements to a well-regulated framework for marijuana legalization. articulated by the Governor.
In drafting the legislation, the Judiciary Committee guided by those five principles and the Cole Memo.
(A) Keeping marijuana and other drugs out of the hands of youth.
(B) Creating a regulated marijuana market that shifts demand away from the illegal market and the inherent public health and safety risks associated with the illegal market.
(C) Using revenue from commercial marijuana sales to expand drug prevention and treatment programs.
(D) Strengthening law enforcement’s capacity to improve the response to impaired drivers under the influence of marijuana or other drugs.
(E) Prohibiting the commercial production and sale of marijuana oils, extracts, and infused products, including edible products, until other states which are currently permitting such products successfully develop consumer protections that are shown to prevent access by youth and potential misuse by adults.
After 5 public hearings, traveling nearly 500 miles in three days and hours of testimony in committee it is clear that Vermonters are split on the issue. Clearly even those who support regulation and legalization are not of one voice. There are many complexities and we have been fortunate to be able to turn to people in the State of Washington and Colorado for thoughts on what went well and what they might have done differently.
Both S.95 and S.241 had provisions that allowed for such an exception to a tightly regulated seed to sale construct. For me that creates an incongruity that I am unable to reconcile. As introduced S.95 & S.241 both create a regulated system, but allow a so called “gray market”. S.241 does not have a plant limit, nor does it designate between mature and immature. The issue with the 10 x 10 is that because there is no limit, we don’t really know how much that plot could produce. As introduced S. 241 clearly goes beyond the guidelines of the Cole Memo and would invite federal prosecution as would the ideas put forth in the letter from Stuart Savel and Rick Veitch. S.95 as introduced follows the law currently established for medical patients, 2 mature, 7 immature plants.
Estimating the yield under each bill is difficult, law enforcement has indicated that you can easily get a pound of useable marijuana off a mature plant. Because these plants will produce significantly more than current civil limits we would need to change most of our criminal laws relating to the possession of marijuana.
After hearing from Public Safety Commissioner Flynn, folks in Washington (which does not allow home grown) and Colorado where at least some folks feel that allowing home grown has created additional problems and has made efforts to control the so called gray market impossible.
That said it has been our intent to have a commission that would look at issues such as the sale of marijuana oils, extracts, and infused products, including edible products.
The Judiciary Committee added to the duties of the commission the following language; Consider the issue of personal cultivation of a small number of marijuana plants and whether Vermont could permit home grow in a manner that would not create diversion or enforcement issues that hinder efforts to divert the marijuana economy from the illegal to the regulated market
It is important to recognize that the Judiciary Committee has decided to take a responsible and cautious rather than reckless approach to legalization, rather than the approach favored by the Home Grown coalition. Personally I am offended by the characterization of S. 241 as a “monopolist bill”, nothing could be further from the truth.
Dick
Dick Sears
State Senator, Bennington County & Wilmington
343 Matteson Rd.
North Bennington, VT 05257
Chair Senate Judiciary Committee
Senate Appropriations Committee”
A Poison Pill?
This seems like one of those rare instances where the supposed beneficiaries might be better off with the status quo…
My two cents
I think the law I’d want:
– would allow anyone who wanted to purchase marijuana or related products could do so legally in any store that offered them, like our local beers and wines
– would allow anyone to grow and sell these sorts of things at Farmers Markets, food fest, etc., like our local beers and wines
– would allow anyone to grow at home or on their farm legally
– would allow for marijuana special event licenses for organizations
– would return the bulk of the tax revenue to the community that sold/grew it.
– would allow for other marijuana products – especially ones that need not be inhaled in smoke form – to be created.
Money should be able to be used locally toward police and fire facilities, or anything the local recipients want to improve in their municipalities. Money for police and treatment, etc. should be set dollar amounts, not percentages. Percentages will lead to overspending on these programs. And police know that marijuana offenses are low on the ladder of dangers to society.
This is a once in our lifetime opportunity to capture significant local option tax revenue at a time when it is greatly needed, for something that has been in use (untaxed) for decades. My worry is that Vermont legalizes this and the bulk of the money doesn’t come to local communities to be spent as we decide. It could be part of a solution to high taxes for needed items in town.
To expand drug prevention and treatment programs??
“(C) Using revenue from commercial marijuana sales to expand drug prevention and treatment programs.”
What the hell is that all about? Do we have alcohol sales revenue going to “expand drug prevention and treatment programs?”
I’m sick of people and legislatures treating marijuana with the same illegality stigma as it does under legalization. Get over it already.
Interesting to hear an
Interesting to hear an argument for local option sales tax (LOST) being presented in this context. Who would be paying this tax? Locals, or visitors who are in Vermont as marijuana tourists?
I think the combination of legalization and state regulation will inevitably lead to satisfying the larger corporate interests. When will tobacco companies start becoming pot growers and marketers?
If the idea is to stop punishing people for a victimless crime and stop supporting a criminal (and often violent) black market – how about leave things much as they are. Decriminalize the possession of small amounts of Vermont grown pot that is for personal use. Forbid the importation and dealing of pot.
In other words, run it like home-made pickles. You don’t need a food license to make pickles for your own consumption and use as gifts. Growing small quantities of quality pot could be a perfect hobby for some folks.
Legalization, as it is being discussed, looks like a big bureaucratic/capitalistic tangle.
Andy
In a pickle
Big tobacco has been strangely quiet on this issue. I remember rumors in high school going around that tobacco companies had trademarked words like “Panama Red” and other terms, to be ready if and when it became legal. Probably urban legend, but it came up in conversation at parties.
It now seems more like new big corporations are making a move. Big investors, celebrities, and so on.
Home-made pickles is a great way to think about this, and a good goal.
As for the Local Option Tax – everyone who purchases would be paying it. Like beer. But you have another option there – just do nothing. Towns might lose revenue (as they are right now by doing nothing), but the goals of ending punishment and eliminating a black market could be reached. Lise, above, agrees that with laws like this, who wants ’em?
It’s rather crucial that people be allowed to infuse it into butter and oils for cooking. There are many people who can’t inhale smoke, but can eat a cookie. I would love to be able to bake cookies for chemo patients someday, but I’d need to be able to buy the butter somewhere. Hopefully at the Farmers Market or Co-op.
The debate continues
And a response:
“We agree with Senator Sears that Marijuana Legalization in Vermont should be in line with the Cole Memorandum. We disagree with Senator Sears in that we see nothing in the Cole Memorandum that prohibits or even addresses a) state legalized personal cultivation on private land or b) state regulated markets for small commercial cultivation. In fact, Commissioner of Financial Regulation, Susan L. Donavan testified in front of Senate Judiciary and Economic Development that it was possible to work within the Cole Memorandum as the dispensaries are currently doing.
http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf
Senator Sears should be aware that AK, CO, OR, and DC all allow personal cultivation with sharing and that federal authorities are not intervening.
We agree with Senator Sears that the Governor’s five points must be adhered to, including (B) Creating a regulated marijuana market that shifts demand away from the illegal market and the inherent public health and safety risks associated with the illegal market. But we disagree that the current language of S.241 will accomplish that. We believe quite the opposite in fact; that under S.241 the tens of thousands of Vermonters currently cultivating marijuana will continue to do so.
The only way to eradicate these parallel markets is to craft a law that makes personal cultivation and small commercial cultivation legal. And in the process make the most of a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a local, sustainable economy around a renewable resource. It is the true Vermont Way.
We believe neighborhood markets will be much more responsible to families and youth than a state regulated monopoly.
We would like to remind Senator Sears that two DUI experts, Bradley Myers (defense attorney) in Bennington and Matthew Hart (defense attorney and former prosecutor) of Rutland testifying in Springfield reported that cannabis impaired drivers are a minuscule portion of DUI stops and cases, and can adequately be evaluated with the current DRE (drug recognition experts).
We are puzzled that Senator Sears was personally offended by our term “state regulated monopoly”. But how else to describe a law that provides marijuana cultivation licenses to .001% of Vermont’s citizens while threatening the other 99.999% with fines, arrest and seizure?
It is clear that S.241, as currently written, is an extension of the failed policies of prohibition. Worse, it envisions a disastrous transfer of wealth from our local communities into the hands of a few. We urge all senators to work towards a legalization bill that recognizes the rights of all Vermonters.
Thank you,
Stuart Savel
Rick Veitch
Emily Amanna
Vermont Home Grown”
Referendum
“It is clear that S.241, as currently written, is an extension of the failed policies of prohibition…We urge all senators to work towards a legalization bill that recognizes the rights of all Vermonters.”
Legislatures are increasing outmoded, particularly in a country with increasing data collection technology to examine large population-wide databases.
The number of people that Dick Sears actually represents as a legislator in this state, for example, is quite small.
We clearly need to change American governance to referendum voting, either as part of legislative law-making or exclusively referendum.
Marijuana and local revenue
The bulk of taxes on Vermont alcohol sales go to the state general fund. A portion of these revenues fund a number of programs that respond to the large costs of alcohol abuse. We have a local option tax on beer and wine that is served in restaurants that contributes to local tax revenue. If you drink a $5 glass of locally brewed beer in Brattleboro 50 cents goes to Montpelier and 5 cents stays in Brattleboro.
The idea that a local option tax on marijuana would be a source of funds for local projects and the local economy would require a big change in statewide taxation policies.
Whenever a local option sales tax of 1% has been defeated, the reason given is that we cannot afford another tax. Why is this different? Believing that marijuana legalization will solve local economic problems is overly optimistic. The more you tax it the more people will continue to rely on existing illegal markets – with some connections to the international drug trade.
Balance local production with local consumption. How about this as a litmus test: Pot is legal if the person consuming it knows the first name of the person who grew it. Again… pickles.
Not Even Close, No Pickle
“Believing that marijuana legalization will solve local economic problems is overly optimistic.”
No one I know involved in marijuana believes that marijuana “legalization will solve” local economic problems.
“Solve” is a very broad term. The marijuana tax revenue will contribute to local and state funds, but is not intended to solve problems.
“Pot is legal if the person consuming it knows the first name of the person who grew it. Again… pickles.”
The adult population in the U.S. is over 245 million. The Vermont adult population is 501, 000. Total Vermont marijuana consumers is likely well over 60,000 people. There simply is no possible means for everyone one of our marijuana consuming population to “know the first name of the person who grew it.”
solve is a broad term, no joke
My remark was a response to cgotke’s 2/11 post:
“My worry is that Vermont legalizes this and the bulk of the money doesn’t come to local communities to be spent as we decide. It could be part of a solution to high taxes for needed items in town.”
I continue to be very skeptical that any such windfall will descend on our local economy. Everything I read points in the direction of legalization with a state controlled system of distribution, regulation and taxation.
My reference to pickles is really just a pipe dream. Some people want this to turn into a locally created and regulated part of the economy… farmers markets and festivals. The state, however, is already talking about a 12 million dollar budget for controlling the marijuana industry. The corporations must be circling just under radar. Maybe I’m just paranoid.
A snowball’s chance in hell
I don’t think you’re paranoid about the corporations. Money and marijuana is a longstanding equation, legal or illegal.
Yep, the legislature is certainly moving to a state controlled system of distribution, regulation and taxation. Local control and benefit from marijuana and its revenue, as you know, has a snowball’s chance in hell. Minimal, at best
Local Option
This is different than a local option tax on sales of items downtown that can be easily bought elsewhere.
First, if VT hops on this, we’ll have a limited monopoly in the region. Customers will travel to us. And Brattleboro is a first stop in Vermont. Our share of a local option tax, for a while, could be significant.
Second, there are no tax polices for marijuana in effect. They are creating them now. Directing more of the revenue toward the locations that generate it isn’t a big change.
Brattleboro could be advocating for, say 15% of a 25% tax to be returned. We aren’t, as far as I can tell, but we could be demanding it right now. If we let it all get sucked up by law enforcement and helpful programs, there won’t be as much for needed expenses such as Police and Fire facilities.
Law enforcement and health folks are advocating for their share. Why not towns?
A choice is being made by town leadership, even if they aren’t actively choosing anything. Considering how important and expensive some town projects are, it is mystifying why this potential revenue isn’t a top priority.
Tonight, btw, the selectboard will approve higher fees enacted for our pets.
A choice is being made by town leadership
Brattleboro and Burlington are first stops in Vermont.
I haven’t been following the Selectboard campaigning and I don’t know if your’s and Andy’s ideas and questions were asked of the candidates.