Rep. Sam Young (D-Glover) is the lead sponsor of a bill due to be introduced Wednesday. On Tuesday, he collected cosponsors and said he expected to have about 15 lawmakers sign on.
“If we’re going to legalize marijuana, I think we should also tax and regulate it,” said Young, who is vice chair of the Committee on Ways & Means.
Young said he’s received no assurances from legislative leaders that his bill would pass. Taxing and regulating marijuana is an approach the Senate passed last year, but that failed to gain traction in the House.
The bill would piggyback off legislation under discussion in the House Judiciary Committee, according to Young. That proposal would legalize personal possession and homegrown marijuana, but does not allow for retail stores. The panel has scaled back its proposal to legalize no more than one ounce of marijuana, rather than two as originally proposed.
House Judiciary Committee chair Maxine Grad (D-Moretown) said she hopes her panel will pass a bill by mid-March. The proposal appears to have broad support in the House. Grad said consideration of Young’s tax-and-regulate approach would be up to other House committees.
Young proposes that the state collect a 15 percent tax on the wholesale price of marijuana and 10 percent on retail sales, while local municipalities could charge 2.5 percent on retail sales.
His bill does not specify how that tax money would be used, but he said he envisions some going to drug prevention and treatment.
Young’s bill calls for the Agency of Agriculture to oversee regulation of various sized marijuana producers, including cannabis cooperatives — which would produce marijuana for up to 10 members — craft cultivators and commercial cultivators. The agency would also regulate retailers and testing laboratories.
It’s unclear whether any marijuana legalization legislation in the House and Senate that passes this year would meet with Gov. Phil Scott’s approval. He said last week that he wants police to have a better ability to measure drivers under the influence of marijuana.
“We have to be able to measure in some way,” he said. “We don’t have a way to detect and measure that impairment … I think there needs to be work on a measure.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Serious question: Why hasn’t legalize-and-tax been a statewide ballot item? Is there a process for that? If so, what’s required? Because the Legislature is completely out of touch on this issue and flushing money down the toilet on a daily basis, it should be put to the people.
Because referenda are not allowed under our state Constitution.
As much as I’d love to see this bill pass it’s highly likely it will not. I’ve watched Vermont drag it’s feet for the last three years about the legalization issue as surrounding states have progressively and economically moved forward. I do feel that the Vermont legislation is in fact completely out of touch with the reality cannabis has been a big part of Vermont life for the past 40 plus years. It’s is here to stay legal or not. To illustrate this point I have repeatedly heard the argument against legalization boil down to the number of “joints in an ounce or a pound”. Joints?? What decade are they living in? The 60’s or 70’s? One cannot categorically quantify and demonized cannabis use by using this archaic reefer madness lingo, but VT legislation does. There is a myriad way to ingest cannabis that cannot be measurably and accurately quantified. Edibles, tinctures, vaporizers, dabbing, salves etc. By referencing DPS’ inaccurate cannabis “data” on joints and Phil Scott’s cope out excuse to “unable to measure level of driver impairment” it’s no wonder we aren’t moving forward.
Scott knows there is no test to accurately measure cannabis impairment that’s why he uses it as a way to say no. Meanwhile, drivers “under the influence” of cannabis continue to drive Vermont roads like they always have with no real issues. When Vermonters can drive to Massachusetts, spend their Vermont dollars on cannabis, smoke a little and drive back home the “issue” continues unchecked by something holding Vermont back from legalization. Scott’s logic is flawed. It’s time to embrace the culture of cannabis, legalize it, tax it, boost our hurting economy and make it another “Vermont Proud” product. If not, I’m on a road trip to Massachusetts on the regular.
Hello Representative Young,
Please allow me to introduce myself. I am Francis Janik from Jamaica Vermont
I am a member of the community group Vermont Home Grown. We have worked with legislators to legalize Cannabis for several years.
I have just seen an article stating that you have proposed legalizing the retail sale of Cannabis here in Vermont.
While we support this, we are concerened that the legislators will limit the opportunities for all Vermonts small growers to participate in this new market.
If we do legalize retail sales we must allow all who want a license to have a license. If the legislation limits the number of licenses to a few such as the current 3 companies who hold the 4 medical licenses then we will once again fail to bring the local growers out of the woods.
I ask you to remember that this is not new money in our economy. Many small growers use the income from their crop of cannabis to pay the bills. We must include these Vermonters who have grown and will continue to grow if they are not included. Legislation that supports a monopoly is simply bad legislation. Please listen to the community group Vermont Home Grown. We speak truth to power.
Sincerely,
Francis Janik
Registered Voter, Registered Patient, Advocate
It’s such an absurd thing to say if it’s legal we need to be test for impairment. Legal or not shouldn’t Scott be concerned with driving stoned?
If they don’t care now enough to figure it out why should the care about stoned driving if it’s suddenly legal? People must not be driving stoned now. (Yeah right)
Maybe, just maybe, the level of impairment is irrelevant. This isn’t booze and even pills are more dangerous to be on and operate a vehicle yet there’s no testing in place for opiate testing at all. People literally nodding in and out of consciousness on opiates while driving.
Let’s not worry about them though, let’s focus on the people who get stoned and generally focus more on driving safely and within the confines of driving laws.
my thought would be to tax product the same as alcohol or even a reduced rate to reflect fewer negative repercussions. I have seen in other states the assessment of a severe sales tax. Should that be the route, the underground market will continue function and flourish
Go Sam Go!
We can tax Alcohol and Cigarettes
So let’s tax Marijuana too
Cause we will need money to pay for the extra police testing machines that Scott wants.
It’s great to have a Legislator from Glover that thinks things through
Massachusetts and Maine sure hope Vermont continues with a non-productive bureaucracy on this subject. Seven Days shows where they stand by referring to marijuana as a “drug.” Most Vermonters don’t love having to deal with REAL DRUG DEALERS in order to purchase a substance as harmless as marijuana. Many in Vermont will support our MA & ME neighbor’s economy if this bill does not pass. Not legalizing pot in Vermont does nothing but cost us more money when we could be helping to balance our budget. Prohibition has not worked in the pass and it won’t work in the future. We continue to be behind the curve on this subject.
“‘If we’re going to legalize marijuana, I think we should also tax and regulate it,’ said Young, who is vice chair of the Committee on Ways & Means.”
Thank you for this! I hope it goes through, with thoughtful consideration to several concerns:
That the House Judiciary committee has, “scaled back its proposal to legalize no more than one ounce of marijuana, rather than two as originally proposed, is problematic in that the original proposal came from the amount of dried herb from the allowed number of plants. Scaling it back is arbitrary and foolish given the realities.
“Scott knows there is no test to accurately measure cannabis impairment that’s why he uses it as a way to say no. Meanwhile, drivers “under the influence” of cannabis continue to drive Vermont roads like they always have with no real issues.” (from the comment above) Whether Scott does or doesn’t know, it is true that there is no drug measurement test–at least according to AAA Insurance studies. Various strains of marijuana affect people’s levels of concentration in various ways that cannot be mechanically measured. Trying to “Police” and criminalize “driving under the influence” when it is technically unmeasurable will take Vermont down a dangerous and very costly path.
From observing last year’s testimony from “public safety officials,” an attitude focused on impairment criminalizes further Vermont’s roadways. Education is far more effective than criminalizing. Perhaps something similar to the “hands off cell phone” “distracted driving” ticket can save Vermont lots of money and serve the communities better.
As we have very recently and tragically seen, we have many potential distractions while driving (eating, children, conversations, anxiety, medication, schedules…. ) and we ALL need to be paying full attention when behind the wheel. We do not need further criminalization of anything.
PS: Beware the new edict from on high: Will State officials protect Vermont residents following Vermont’s new laws when the Feds come to prosecute?
Phil Scott’s cop-out argument “…no legalization absent means for impaired testing” says much about the man’s character: He is dishonest. He’d garner far more respect openly rejecting by way of logical argument (oh wait, there really is none) than by his politically correct avoidance of the issue. He won’t openly reject legalization because he knows the vast majority of Vermonters (logically) embrace it. Avoidance (cowardice), plain and simple. Driving under the influence of marijuana is occurring now. Legislation neither condones nor alters that reality. Further, a single glass of wine or some OTC medication is far more impairing than marijuana. Wake up.