Updated at 4:17 p.m.
Gov. Phil Scott on Wednesday vetoed pending legislation that would legalize marijuana in Vermont. But he promised to work with lawmakers to fashion a new bill that might win his support next month.
“I am not philosophically opposed to ending the prohibition on marijuana,” Scott said at a highly anticipated press conference in his Montpelier office. “However … we must get this right.”
The legislation would have allowed adults over age 21 to possess up to an ounce of marijuana and grow as many as two mature plants per household, starting in July 2018. It also would have created a commission to report back by November with a plan to tax and regulate marijuana sales, as other states have done.
The Republican governor said Wednesday that he would provide legislators with “explicit” recommendations to craft a bill that might meet his approval. He suggested that lawmakers tackle them when they reconvene July 21 for an expected two-day veto session.
The governor’s office later released a list of written recommendations calling for “clear” penalties for the sale of marijuana to minors and the use of the drug in vehicles occupied by children. The list also called for “broader membership” on the commission studying taxation and regulation, as well as more time for it to issue its report.
Senate Judiciary Committee chair Dick Sears (D-Bennington) said he received a verbal outline of the governor’s suggestions from Scott’s legislative liaison, Kendal Smith. “It sounds like there’s some room to work with him,” Sears said.
The senator said he had been expecting the governor to veto the bill based on his comments over the last few weeks. “So I’m pleased he’s willing to work with the legislature,” Sears said.
His counterpart, House Judiciary Committee chair Maxine Grad (D-Moretown), also saw a silver lining in Wednesday’s announcement.
“While I’m disappointed, it could’ve been a veto and nothing else, so I do see that as an opening,” she said.
Sears said that acquiescing to the governor on smoking in cars is unlikely to be problematic but that delaying the commission’s report could be. “I was hoping for something quicker,” he said. “In Massachusetts, they’ll be selling it in July 2018.”
Grad agreed. “I need to think about that,” she said.
The House Judiciary chair said that the logistics of moving a new measure through the legislature in two days next month could be a challenge. It would require the Republican minority to agree to suspend legislative rules to speed the process. “I’m hoping [the governor] will work on all sides of the aisle and help us take that path,” she said.
But House Minority Leader Don Turner (R-Milton) later made clear that he would not play ball. He said in a statement Wednesday afternoon that he saw “no reason to expedite or circumvent the legislative process by suspending rules” to pass a new legalization bill during the veto session.
“There’s a lot of people in our caucus opposed to legalizing marijuana,” Turner said later in an interview. “I don’t see that changing.”
Without the support of a significant number of Turner’s 53-member Republican caucus, the House would lack the votes to suspend the rules. Turner said Scott’s staff did not seek his support to help advance the legislation this year. “They said, ‘We’re not asking for anything, but here’s what we’re doing,'” Turner said.
Opponents and proponents of legalization alike lobbied Scott aggressively in recent weeks as they awaited his decision on the bill.
On Wednesday, the Vermont chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics praised Scott’s veto in a statement. “Legalizing recreational marijuana would have created substantial risks to the health and development of Vermont’s children and adolescents, and normalized the use of the drug in ways that had great potential to increase youth use rates,” the group said.
Supporters of legalization were disappointed in Scott’s veto. Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, a Progressive/Democrat, called it “very short-sighted.”
“I am sad to see the governor disregard the will of most Vermonters and reduce individual liberties in our state,” he said in a statement.
Other legalization supporters vowed to keep fighting.
“We’re encouraged that there’s a path forward,” said Laura Subin, director of the Vermont Coalition to Regulate Marijuana. “I think it’s workable.”
Eli Harrington, a legalization supporter and co-founder of the advocacy organization Heady Vermont, was less optimistic that a new bill could be crafted to meet Scott’s demands. “I think it’s probably pretty doubtful,” he said.
After Wednesday’s press conference, however, Scott’s staff approached both Subin and Harrington and asked if they’d be willing to have a conversation with administration officials about the next steps.
“I wish we’d had it sooner, but anytime,” Harrington told Scott staffer Ethan Latour.
That outreach stands in contrast to Scott’s previous involvement in marijuana legalization. His staff testified before legislators when asked but generally did not get involved in helping them craft a bill that would have been acceptable to him.
The 58-year-old governor, who said he’s never consumed marijuana himself, reiterated Wednesday that he doesn’t see legalization as a priority.
“There’s nothing that says we have to do this,” he said.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
“The reality is that Vermonters do use marijuana and so legalization is not about increasing the use of marijuana. It’s about legalizing something that has already gone on, where prohibition has not worked, and so I am in favor of legalization.
“I think there are three main advantages to legalization. First is that it actually will be easier to keep marijuana away from young people. Young people today can find marijuana much more easily than they can obtain alcohol and that’s because it’s not regulated. Second, when you’re buying marijuana on the black market, you don’t know what it is you’re buying. You don’t know the purity of it. You don’t know the the power of it. If it’s sold through licensed outlets, there will be regulation and buyers will know they’ll get a safer product. And finally, it should be a source of revenue to the state. These transactions are going on and the state is getting no revenue at all. If it’s legalized, there’ll be more money into the coffers of the state for essential public services.”
Peter Galbraith as a candidate for Governer, VPR News, June 2016
I voted for Governor Scott, but I’ve lost a lot of respect for him after watching his handling of this bill. Why wait until hours before the bill would have been become law to weigh in with recommendations? That conversation could easily have happened a month or two ago. That’s just plain mis-management.
The Governor’s concern for safety is obviously important, but we’ve already been living with every one of those issues for some time and I haven’t seen any initiative to address them before this bill came along. Is the Governor really saying that as long as people are driving while smoking pot illegally (as they do now) our kids and roads are safe, but once they can can do it legally we will suddenly be in danger? Based on the experiences of 8 other states, there is no data to support this.
Whether it’s legal or not has little to do with whether we need to address safety concerns. But those two separate issues keep getting mixed up, as if they go together. They don’t.
Most of you did not hear the Governor answer a question posed by Eli Harrington of Heady Vermont during his press conference. You can see the full video on Face Book. Both Heady Vermont and Vermont Home Grown have posted it. Eli asked the Governor about Vermont’s most prized industry, tourism. Eli wanted to know what message that the Governor was sending to vacationers who come from out of state and happen to choose cannabis over alcohol to relax with. The Governor responded that Vermont wants family’s to come to vacation here. Eli asked what about cannabis users. The governors response was to suggest that those people should find another state to spend their money in. There goes at least half of our tourism dollars. If I lived in Massachusetts and wanted to take my legal home grown cannabis with me on vacation, I would rather spend time in a State like Maine which respects the right of it’s citizens to choose a non alcoholic, non narcotic, tobacco free plant to relax with.
Governor Scott, Just between you and me a lot of parents need to smoke a joint after a long day when the children have gone to sleep.
Governor Scott, Please meet with Dr. Joe McSherry. He gave testimony to the Human Services Committee on youth prevention that may change your mind. He told us that the issues with 14 to 18 year old youth stem form environmental factors. He said that the abuse of any substance by youth’s is an attempt to medicate for anxiety caused by multiple factors unique to each situation. Unfortunately, State representative Francis “Topper” Fawn lied to the full house about his testimony.
Yeah wants to fix it!! Tell me the governor did not know the republicans caucus stand on this bill?? He makes an excuse for his veto by suggesting changes knowing that it ain’t going to happen in the two day session. The study committee is a bunch of BS also. He has found a way to lay the blame for his inaction on others. If you research the enforcement issue you will find that the state police and local law enforcement have been dealing with drug impaired drivers for a number of years now. They have it figured out all ready. Just another head in the sand knee jerk reaction.
Anti-pot crusader Kevin Sabet has been bragging about all the money they spent in Vermont to get that veto. Wonder where it went?
@ Bob Frazier: You are asking if the members of the Vermont Legislature who have no experience with marijuana and voted to legalize it, is their decision based upon lack of curiosity and ignorance. Absolutely not.
In America we are free individuals, unfettered by government restrictions unless there is compelling evidence that something must be forbidden. The Legislature is recognizing that with marijuana, no such compelling reason exists, and therefore they are voting to remove this abuse of government power which was only enacted through deception and the wish to protect corporate monopolies.
Some of our politicians and lawmakers would rather destroy the lives of citizens and veterans than stand up to their masters at big booze, private prisons and pharmaceutical corporations and legalize cannabis.
All the information needed for a decision on cannabis legalization has already been collected and can be found at the Center for Disease Control.
Figures directly from the CDC on numbers of deaths per year in the US:
* Prescription Drugs: 237,485 + 5000 traffic fatalities
* Tobacco: 390,323
* Alcohol: 88,013 + 16,000 traffic fatalities
* Cocaine: 4,906
* Heroin: 7,200
* Aspirin: 466
* Acetaminophen (Tylenol): 179
* Marijuana: 0, none, not a single fatal toxic overdose in 5,000 years of continuous use and almost no traffic problems.
So, which is safer???? Legalize, regulate, TAX!
The reaction of the stoners is quite comical!
Dumb dumb dumb Scott. Sure, commercial would create increases in bad outcomes. Not a 2oz personal grow. Please…
@timothy price, I assume you do know that the majority of Legislators that voted in favor of the marijuana law have never endulged either, or are being untruthful. Does their lack of curiosity render their position uninformed and ignorant as well?