Up to 42 retail marijuana stores would open in the Green Mountain State, and Vermonters who have reached age 21 could buy an ounce of pot. Some people, though, might prefer bellying up to the bar at a marijuana lounge and consume some on the spot.
That’s what legalized recreational marijuana use could look like here, at least under matching bills legislators are introducing.
Sen. David Zuckerman (P/D-Chittenden) introduced S.95 today and
and Rep. Chris Pearson (P-Burlington) said he will introduce an identical bill in the House this week. They are hoping their detailed plan will bring new focus to the debate.
That it might do, though their bills are unlikely to get very far this year. Key state leaders have said they want to wait for more information about how fledgling legalization laws are working in Colorado and other states. Earlier this year, Senate Judiciary Committee chair Dick Sears (D-Bennington) indicated legalization wouldn’t make it onto their agenda: “I don’t expect it to come up this session,” he said.
The sponsors want marijuana to be regulated much like alcohol is. “More than 75 years of criminalizing marijuana has failed to prevent marijuana use,” says an advance copy of the legislation, obtained by Seven Days. “Responsible use of marijuana should be treated the same as responsible use of alcohol.”
The bill’s 43 pages detail a possible weed bureaucracy. A new marijuana board would decide its cost. The goal, the bill notes, would be to make it affordable enough to undercut the illicit market.
The bill includes lessons learned from Colorado, where retail sales became legal last year, Pearson said. Unlike in Colorado, the number of stores would be limited, to no more than 42. “We don’t want them on every street corner,” Pearson said. And regulators would determine how strong a single-serving marijuana product could be. That’s meant to avoid problems seen in Colorado with over-consumption of marijuana edibles.
Other highlights:
- The state would grant permits to Vermont nonprofit organizations or benefit corporations to operate as cultivators, product manufacturers, testing labs, retail stores or lounges. “We want the money to stay local,” Pearson said.
- Prospective establishments would pay a $2,000 application fee. For annual fees, cultivators would pay $1,000 to $50,000, depending on size; retail stores, $30,000; lounges, $10,000; and product manufacturers and testing labs, $5,000.
- A paid, five-member Marijuana Control Board, appointed by the governor, would set rules and oversee growers’ and sellers’ operations.
- Local communities could restrict or exclude marijuana operations. Smoking marijuana would be prohibited in public.
- Out-of-staters could buy up to a quarter ounce. The state would levy a $40-an-ounce tax on marijuana. Zuckerman said he expects that would generate $25 million a year just from in-state sales.
- Of the tax revenues, 60 percent would go to the state’s general fund; 10 percent to the Agency of Human Services for educational and criminal justice programs; 10 percent to the Public Safety Department for enforcement; 5 percent to municipalities that host operations; 5 percent to municipalities that host stores; 2.5 percent for restorative justice programs; 2.5 percent to youth substance abuse funds; and 5 percent to the University of Vermont — for marijuana research.
- The bill would allows Vermonters to legally grow up to two mature and seven immature plants in a secure, indoor facility.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Zuckerman can take kick backs by playing kingmaker with the outlet shops. and they expect to make 40 $ an oz while undercutting the black market. Proving the Zuckerman has been smoking GMO weed again.
Do we call this new strain of weed GMO is there an organic ditch weed strain available all organic no kick to the toke?Or are we all poisoning the kids with the new strains of high concentrated genetically modified weed they sell in Colorado?
While the legislature dithers all that tax money is going up in smoke, if they want a free market make it available like Colorado and let the free market find the cost and level of business. set prices at the street level and take a percentage of the gate. KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT as much as possible.
Over regulation is not working in Washington that’s the whole point of legalizing the weed. This proposal is just marxist bullpuckey destroying the opportunity with cronyism from the state house and a sketchy promise of tax collections from a trustifarian farmer who wants to play king maker for his toker buddies.
I would hardly call bringing pot into the free enterprise system a Marxist theory.
Curious as to whether or not Zukerman or Pearson were part of that elite “fact finding” excursion to Colorado recently or if they have personally gone to that state and done research on its effects…just because you smoke it and enjoy it does not make you an expert! That state is still experiencing growing pains (no pun intended) although millions of dollars are being made. In the initial Colorado plan, this surplus of monies was suppose to be allocated to communities, drug enforcement, education, etc., yet, these groups have STILLl to see these dollars come their way OR the enforcement of over use or over selling. I am glad Sears says the S.95 bill will not make it on the books this year for consideration. I am also glad that the bill purposes that local communities have the right to restrict or exclude operations. I think a lot more research and thoughtful guidelines needs to go into this legalization before we consider it safe or beneficial to Vermont. It is NOT the answer to all of Vermont’s economic woes.
While I disagree with commenter Walt on a few of the particulars, there is no doubt that legislating a bureaucracy to manage the growth, harvesting, sale and broad distribution for state revenue is a sign of three major weaknesses in legislative and gubernatorial logic:
First, there is the presumption that the state is capable of managing a controlled economy for pot, and in such a way that it undercuts the street value in price and quality.
Second, that building a budgetary/revenue structure that relies on this bureaucracy will be a stable and helpful structure (stable for revenue and helpful to consumers).
And lastly, that the thought of legalizing marijuana is so contrary to the message of the last 50 years that there is a belief that it can only be accompanied by regulation and taxation, as if to say: “okay, we admit we were wrong, pot’s not all that bad, but if you want to consume you have to pay a penalty to absolve you of your sin of consumption of the devil’s weed.”
The pseudo-moralistic hand-wringing that can be bought away with taxation and regulation merely underscores the hypocrisy of our legislature. How about this as an alternative: legalize the growing, harvesting, distribution and possession of marijuana in a manner that has much, if not everything, in common with our approach to Maple Syrup production and sale. Tax commercial scale operations in a manner that is consistent with the frameworks of existing business income tax law and require ‘truth in advertising’ regarding statements about THC content or ‘grade’. Now that we’ve abandoned our classical syrup designation, let’s put that to use in the pot products. Who wouldn’t jump at a chance to smoke some classic Grade A Medium Amber King’s Kush?
Legalizing marijuana may be a good idea, but not the way described in the article. I don’t think there is enough public comfort with the idea for one, or enough knowledge about the effects of legalization for the other. Here’s how I think it could work better. The state would contract with licensed cultivators who provide the product packaged for sale to Vermont liquor stores where it would sell along with liquor. The product would meet strict standards for potency. The product would come in pre-rolled cigarette form or in loose leaf form in cans. There would be no pot-infused food or beverage products allowed. Only small amounts would be sold at a time. It makes more sense to me to tightly control and limit the cultivation and sale of pot until experience tells us otherwise.
Well, this is a start. Unfortunately the VT legislature will likely blow the opportunities, real or hoped for as indicated in this first pass of S.95. Even if they can get past concerns of individual political risk, debate and indecision will drag legalization out and will likely miss early adoption benefits when a neighboring State, such as NH acts ahead of VT. Let’s just say they do act on a timely basis. I can’t imagine how messed up the roll out would be with mandated State oversight of a legalized environment, vis-a-vis the botched up (and still not fixed) launch of the VT health insurance exchange. For that matter, the inefficiency and hassle of any State run entity. The only bright side to legalization will be that Pete the Gov will get solidly behind approval so he can claim credit for ‘his’ legislature being the 1st in the nation (vs. referendum) to legalize weed. Should be interesting, huh?
Joe, the marxis theory is thinking they can control price of a very successful free market albeit illegal one by regulation and taxing it and limiting the market to a few state sponsored shops. Better to open up the entire illegal market to become legal and allow the state to take a tax.
For the safety of police and ability to retain earnings. It would generate more tax same thing with setting prices by five idots let an auction set the price in a free market.
Zuckerman is setting the table for a bigger harder to fight black market. Look a the Washington State example they have not experienced a boon in tax revenue following the Zuckerman Strategy of over control. The black market is making the money while state shops aren’t .
Joe Sunseri please explain how a market that controls price and distribution and confers winners all by the state is a free market? Farmers dont set prices shop owners dont set prices there are limits on how much and where you can grow the product and how much can be bought or traded all set by the state and this is a free market? Some free enterprise…
There’s now a bill. People will differ over the specifics. Here’s what we do know. Over two years ago Burlington passed a legalization referendum by 70.2%( likely much higher if we re-voted). Castleton polling last year found 57% of all Vermonters supporting legalization. The past 5 years have seen big majorities from Alaska to D.C. voting legalization. Why would we, in supposedly the most progressive state in the country, allow the likes of Shumlin, Smith, Campbell, Sears and others to block this bridge to allowing the bill to come to the floor this legislative session. Youth access, driving while high, edibles are all red herrings the Democratic Party leadership are serving up on behalf of the 1%. Americans in four states and D.C have all heard these last dying gasps of the Prohibition movement and rejected them. They’re not insurmountable problems as Colorado has shown. The majority in VT are ready to organize and mobilize to tell our reps that we reject these distractions too and demand that these bills come to the floor and that they vote for VT legalization this legislative session and not when it suits the political aspirations of a handful of philistines. If they need to see the movie version I’d suggest “Selma” where Johnson arrogantly and paternalistically told the civil rights movement that he’d get to them and their bill on his time.
I am really surprised that the legislation introduced today is so conservative, and full of so much oversight and regulation. I guess the fact that Colorado and Washington have not fallen into chaos and poverty, or faced fire and brimstone, is not proof enough that the fear is far, far greater than the truth.
No one will be coming here from out of state to buy 1/4 ounce of anything, they can get that at home. And growing just two mature plants at home?
It is either going to be legal or illegal. Anyone over the age of 21 can buy as much alcohol as they want, if cannabis is going to be legal, it should be the same way (or at least a reasonable amount; 1/4 ounce is the equivalent of a twelve-pack). And if you can brew as much beer as you want at home for your own consumption, cannabis should be the same way.
I am so glad that we’re finally having these conversations at the state level! Hopefully common sense will prevail in the execution.
Since the question was asked, no, neither Rep. Pearson nor I were part of the trip to California. In this bill personal production is allowed, so those that don’t want to buy it can grow it (like beer). For those that don’t want to grow it, it is regulated (like alcohol). There is an allowance for more stores to open if the board see that the demand/supply curve has the price too high. With a goal of underpricing the underground market as part of the board mission. Sure it is a roll out. Not a free wheeling bill. Yes the majority of the state supports legalization…but I don’t think the majority of the state sypport s legalization with no oversight. The goal of putting the bill out there is to get various feedback (like what we are reading here as well as constituent calls, letters to editor etc.) and adjust the bill to reflect what we learn (collectively). It is not a perfect process. As for Colorado, it has gone well in the big picture, but there have also been some scares (thankfully and predictable not life threatening). So we can learn from those (such as regulating edibles so that they are less enticing for small children and so that servings are clear). Looking forward to the debate and progress.
Zuckerman has treated the pot business like he just invented it. There is a strong infrastructure in the illegal trade growing it, distributing it ,and selling it to an active customer base. Like it or not it exists.
Making it legal has the potential to eliminate some illegal gun activity, in any illegal market you have to self police. so it makes us collectively safer to take that element out of our society. Those folks who dont pay taxes shift the cost of police to us plus jailing them etc..
The bill as written is too controlling, will the current structure that is in place go away I doubt it. the point of making it legal is to eliminate the criminal behavior.
Legislation should drag the illegal market into the open and put safe guards in for consumers and children. Currently it is easier for kids to get weed than alcohol if we make the process so restrictive will they find heroin easier to get than either alcohol or weed? that’s a scary thought.
The first order of business should be to eliminate the black market, put in safe guards for consumers so folks aren’t smoking something laced with bath salts and finally tax it.
Why are we trying to reinvent a wheel that makes the black market a more efficient market for production, distribution and sales with Zuckerman’s kludgey bill?
So we agree on a few points but first you have to take a very profitable long in the tooth illegal structure into the light. Fact is the criminals know the market the customers and how to run this business you have to make the alternative to criminal enticing. I dont think this bill as written does that.
Sen. Zuckerman has not explained why it’s not possible to assemble a winning coalition to win legalization this legislative session. No Vermonter expects him to offer up a perfect bill but we see no reason why we can’t implement a bill that learns from every social experiment that’s gone before and start implementing our own.. Amsterdam hasn’t collapsed after over 40 years of cannabis/hashish being available to the whole society. Colorado and Washington hasn’t collapsed. So the worst thing they’ve experienced this past year is Maureen Dowd having a bad night in her hotel room? The Progressives ask us to vote for them so they can advance our agenda in the various elected assemblies around the state. If Sen. Zuckerman and Rep. Pearson are unable to fashion, either from failure of vision or nerve, a winning coalition of grassroots Democrats, Progressives, Greens, Libertarians, independents, Repubs, anti-prohibitions, environmentalists, workers organizations, hemp farmers, cannabis capitalists, alternative therapists/healers, civil libertarians, moms with ailing children, students, religious communities, etc, etc, etc, to overcome the obstructionism of Shumlin, Campbell, Smith and Sears then they should consider abdicating their leadership on this issue or sharing it with the plethora of groups and people ready and eager to move on this now. If the Progressive Party’s decision is that they’d rather lose on legalization this year than challenge the Democratic Party leadership then shame on them. People around the world are abandoning traditional “progressive” organizations from Spain to Greece because those groups have failed to fight on behalf of the people and have made far too many appeasements with their 1%. The PP was already burned once by Shumlin around the single-payer movement. “Fool me once shame on you, fool………..”
In response to David Z., I was the one who asked if he and Pearson were part of the “fact finding” trip to COLORADO. His response was No, they did not go to CALIFORNIA….WOW, and he is sponsoring the bill and its guidelines for the legalization of it? I think he is indulging too much!
“For those that don’t want to grow it, it is regulated (like alcohol)”
Dave, you need to examine the conflict between what your bill calls legal possession i.e. less than an ounce, and allowing the personal farmer up to 2 mature plants. Two mature plants has the ability to produce far more than what a person is allowed to possess. As written a person would either have to break the law by producing what an average plant would produce, or grow tiny, probably not worth it considering costs, plants. The bill as written makes no sense.
“There is an allowance for more stores to open if the board see that the demand/supply curve has the price too high. With a goal of underpricing the underground market as part of the board mission. “
This is rather poorly thought out. As we can see with the structure of the possession and personal grow amount, you, the author of the bill, may be coming from a place of ignorance. Who is going to be on this board and how can the public trust that they’ll know pot from a bag of oregano? Are the board going to be visiting local dealers saying “Hello good sir, would you mind telling me what your price is on a ounce of Kush?” The mind boggles at this bills poorly conceived structure. This idea that a board can regulate price, quality etc. is bound to fail.
Ohhh….This is all so hilarious! You ALL are under educated about Cannabis Reform… Most of the problem stems from people being so miss-led about the plant itself. Then the politics, oh the politics. David’s bill introduced into the house is actually pretty well written for staters. There may need to be a few tweaks here and there but it’s a great starting point.