Happy 4/20, dudes!
Just in time for the pot smokers’ high holiday comes this toke-tastic news from the statehouse in Montpelier.
A bill to decriminalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana — which was blocked this year by House Speaker Shap Smith (D-Buzzkill) — will finally get a hearing.
Next year.
Smith blocked marijuana decriminalization from consideration in the House this year, prompting anoymous pot advocates to harass him and his family online. A Senate version could still pass before a May 4 adjournment, but the Senate sponsors are doubtful about its prospects.
On Friday, Tom Cheney, Smith’s aide, told Seven Days that the speaker has brokered a deal with the House bill’s tri-parisan sponsors, Reps. Jason Lorber (D-Burlington, pictured at a statehouse cookout held today), Chris Pearson (P-Burlington) and Adam Howard (R-Cambridge). The agreement means the legislation will move next year.
The deal apparently has two parts. First, Vermont Public Safety Commissioner Keith Flynn will head up a study this summer examining the costs and benefits of decrininalizing marijuana in the states where possession is now a civil penalty rather than a crime — such as New York, Massachusetts, Maine and Connecticut, to name a few.
Second, the House Judiciary Committee will take testimony on the bill in 2013.
That might not seem like much of a victory for decrim supporters — especially since the deal depends upon its architects winning re-election this November. But Lorber, the bill’s lead sponsor, views it as a significant step forward.
“This was not the desired outcome, but we’ll get there,” Lorber said. “This path is not unusual. We had a similar approach when we did marriage [equality]. There was a summer study, and that laid the groundwork. The issues are very different, but there’s precedent.”
Cheney said the speaker “never wanted to hold up the bill; he wanted more information and he hopes the [study] will be informative to the committee.” That would be the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Bill Lippert (D-Hinesburg), who declined to comment on the deal Friday because, for one thing, he hadn’t had a chance to inform his committee members about it yet.
Lober was clearly feeling optimistic about the pledge.
“All our ducks are lined up for passage on this,” he said in the statehouse cafeteria Friday afternoon.
Lober said the idea of decriminalizing possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is popular with Vermonters — legalizing (not decrimalizing) pot won majority support in this year’s Doyle poll. And he argued that prosecuting people for possesion of small amounts of marijuana wastes scarce judicial resources — upwards of $700,000 a year, according to a report by the legislature’s Joint Fiscal Office.
“We have limited dollars and we should be focusing on the most serious drugs, and marijuana doesn’t even make the list,” Lorber said, before adding, “Or it’s near the bottom of it.”
On the lawn outside the statehouse, enjoying a springtime barbecue, Senate sponsors of a decrim bill were feeling decidely less optimistic. Sen. Philip Baruth (D-Chittenden) was dressed down on the Senate floor Friday morning by Sen. Dick Sears (D-Bennington) over comments Baruth made on a blog post about decriminalization, and alleged double-dealing by Sears.
Baruth (pictured at left in photo) said he was assured that his decriminalization legislation would be attached to a bill he supports, but instead it was tacked on to a bill that he adamantly opposes: one authorizing law enforcement to monitor prescription databases for drug-related criminal activity.
Eating a hamburger on the statehouse steps, Baruth likened the situation to “having the filet mignon you wanted, but only if you take the poison pill that comes with it.” He said that’s something he cannot do.
Baruth’s partner in crime — er, de-crime — on the marijuana legislation is Sen. Joe Benning (R-Calendonia), a trial attorney. He said passing marijuana decrim this year would be a “pyrrhic victory” because the legislation is doomed in the House. “And I’m not into pyrrhic victories right now,” Benning said.
Perhaps by 4/20/13, they’ll be singing a different tune …one that goes, “Decriminalize It! Don’t criticize it!”
Photo credits: Andy Bromage
This article appears in Apr 18-24, 2012.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Oh for gods sake. If law enforcement and the courts are already not enforcing and/or turning a blind eye toward small-amount pot possession, why is this bill needed? This bill seems to be a solution in search of a problem, promoted by potheads. Message to potheads: 1. You shouldn’t be smoking marijuana. Period. 2. Smoke pot in the privacy of your own house, and absolutely nothing is going to happen to you in Vermont, assuming your house doesn’t get raided because you do something else stupid.
Given his earlier ambition to run for the office of Attorney General (and, possibly, later for Governor when next the position became likely for a Democrat other than the current office holder to seek), it could be very likely House Speaker Shap Smith’s opposition er, hesitation to moving the bill had much more to do with his ambition for higher political office than anything else; and, yet, maybe he figures it would have been much too highly obvious if he switched gears and allow it to be moved along this year after he changed his mind about a run for statewide office this year.
It would not be the first, nor will it be the last time a bill gets killed er, blocked due to something not having anything to do with the merits of the bill or the matter it addresses, other than how it could have clearly stood in the way of someone’s political ambitions as well as having to be careful about how they are perceived by the decisions they make about such matters.
P.S.
If the House Speaker and others had been interested in merely seeking more information about the issue and how best to proceed, they could have easily done a Summer study committee last year and not wait for this year, when the only real motivation for doing so comes down to hopefully scoring political points during an election year.
Morgan W. Brown
Montpelier, Vermont
In case it is of interest, having drawn upon what I had previously posted as comment(s), first within this 7Days Blurt blog post comment thread (above) and then over on Green Mountain Daily as well, one can also view my blog post concerning the marijuana decriminalization effort to date during this legislative session in Vermont and includes some of my observations and opinions about such, which I later tweaked, added to and did a rolling update while I was at it (via Vermont Watch):
http://www.vermontwatch.net/20…
Morgan W. Brown
Montpelier, Vermont
Even in Vermont this thing remains a political football. Voters just love the whole war on drugs meme.
Oh good, another study of chicken house protection headed by a fox. Doesn’t anyone care about conflict of interest any more? :-)))))
It is time to move on and stop studying this issue. The fact is, marijuana should be legalized, taxed and regulated. We should use the tax revenue to help the small percentage of people for whom marijuana becomes an addiction (whether mental or physical…it does not matter). We will reduce our costs in the criminal justice system, and we will reduce bad records and future employment challenges for what was youthful mistakes. Alcohol causes far worse problems in society, but it is an acceptable drug. If we bring this out into the open we can; help those who need help, stop wasting money, and we can use the additional resources for law enforcement on issues that really matter far more. We have been talking about marijuana policy since I was working on these issues in the statehouse 14 years ago. Many in law enforcement know the time has come to change the law. They just are too afraid to say so.
“…comments made on a blog post…”
Gee, Andy, whichever blog might that be? Is there a 7D policy against naming other blogs because they’re in “competition” with Blurt? If a story originated in the Burlington Free Press, would you have written “comments made in a newspaper story”? I think not.
Hint: Green Mountain Daily.
Fair point that we should have linked to Baruth’s original comment, but dude, there’s a standing link to Green Mountain Daily in the sidebar of every Blurt post!
YOU’LL NEVER BE GOVERNOR ZUCKERMAN!!
(sarcasm)
“Yeah, well. The Dude abides. “
1. it is their decision to smoke as much as it is yours not too. 2. Nothing other than being placed into the Criminal (In)Justace system. 3. It keeps Hemp based products out of the market. 4,5,6,7,…..ect.
Find a way to determine whether someone was driving under the influence and I will support it. Until then there is a serious issue.
Tommy crashes into someone because he is high as a kite, the cops test for THC in his system and find he has some, tommy tells them its from last night. Cops have nothing.
Johnny tokes up on his way to work, where he drops a hammer off the roof he’s working on killing his co-worker. VOSHA investigates and finds Johnny has been doping, but they can’t tell when and if it’s work related. Johnny is fired, as their is no evidence he was high, he sues for wrongful termination.
Maybe some of our citizen scientists could figure it out…