New representative calls Sen. Benning pot bill ‘heavy handed’

By Guy Page

A new Vermont House member disputes a veteran senator’s claim that communities should be able to decide by next March whether to ask voters if a retail marijuana store is a good fit.

At issue is a proposed Senate bill to change to last year’s retail cannabis law, which promised towns they wouldn’t have to host marijuana shops unless and until voters agreed to allow them. Senate Bill 25, co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Benning (R-Caledonia), would amend the law by limiting the window of town decision-making to just one year. If by next March a town hasn’t put the question to voters, they’ll never be able to do so again. After that, all license applications would go through the state controlled Cannabis Control Board.

state of Vermont

State Sen. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia

“As for whether towns have had enough time, this issue has been out there now for over five years, possibly more,” Benning said. “I would argue that any such suggestion that ‘we need more time’ at this point is really just an attempt to avoid having to deal with it. In the meantime, with cannabis now legal, underground sales markets that threaten to release to our kids more harmful substances are thriving due to legally approved retail sites being unavailable.”

Freshman Rep. Art Peterson (R-Clarendon) disagrees. He is the lead sponsor of H.164, which “proposes to require a town to vote to allow the operation of any type of licensed cannabis establishment prior to such an establishment operating within the town.”

“I am concerned that S.25 sets a deadline on our towns,” Peterson said. “If towns do not conduct a vote that means they are not interested in having cannabis retailers in their communities, which is their right under the law. By their inaction, towns are sending the message that they are either not interested in drug retailers, or are in a “wait and see” mode.”

“I don’t believe towns like the heavy handed, ‘we know better what’s good for you’ approach of S.25,” Peterson said. “My bill will will extend local control to cover cultivation, product manufacturing, and product testing of cannabis. Towns will be able to decide whether or not they want to be a part of the cannabis industry, an industry that is still illegal at the federal level. Again, if towns choose to do  nothing they will not be subject to growers and producers coming in to their communities uninvited, as is now the law.”

On Town Meeting Day, March 2, voters in at least 20 Vermont cities and towns will decide whether to allow retail marijuana. The new state law says local voter approval is needed before a marijuana store can open. But what about towns that don’t want to vote on retail pot? At least 41 towns don’t even want the question on the Town Meeting ballot.

According to media reports and results from a town clerk survey by Vermont for Drug Free Youth, the following municipalities will hold “shall retail marijuana be allowed” votes at Town Meeting:

Middlebury, Salisbury, Bennington, Randolph, Orleans, Berlin, Waitsfield, Waterbury, Brattleboro, Burlington, Montpelier, Brandon, Winooski, Pownal, Lyndon, St. Johnsbury, Brownington, Newport, and Pawlet. Londonderry will hold a vote, but probably at a later date this year, Town Clerk and legislator Kelly Pajala told Vermont Daily today.

The following towns will not hold a retail marijuana vote at Town Meeting:

Clarendon, Thetford, Cornwall, Goshen, Ripton, Shoreham, Starksboro, Waltham, East Dorset, Manchester Ctr, Searsburg, Stamford, Woodford, Danville, Kirby, Sheffield, Williston, Brunswick, Guildhall, Sheldon, Isle La Motte, Morrisville, Topsham, Washington, Alburgh, Grand Isle, Jay, Cabot, E Montpelier, Roxbury, Warren, E. Dummerston, Guilford, Marlboro, Townshend, Hartford, Barnard, Ludlow, Plymouth, Reading, Rochester.

The voting status of other municipalities is unknown at this time.

Read more of Guy Page’s reports. Vermont Daily is sponsored by True North Media.

Images courtesy of Public domain and state of Vermont

6 thoughts on “New representative calls Sen. Benning pot bill ‘heavy handed’

  1. I suspect that as the MJ becomes legal the black market will make it stronger and cheaper. Where is the data to prove otherwise? Put yourself in the mind of the black market… anything the state can do the black market can do better and cheaper. It’s a no brainer. Remember the black market has no taxes and little overhead, no regulations or quality control or layers of admin. It also has the youth to go after that the state cannot directly do.
    I wish I was wrong on this.

  2. Big ‘Atta Boy’ goes out to Rep. Art Peterson for his efforts on H.164.
    Donna B is right. Setting up a retail marijuana operation is going to require some serious funding and investment, and is not going to be accomplished by a bunch of aging hippies from East Overshoe. Follow Donna’s point and watch who will be standing in line to invest in these cannabis operations. And pay attention to see how many might be voting legislators. Mr. Chase is right–Montpelier stinks; like a 1960’s open air rock concert…

  3. In VT, towns according to Montpelier don/t have a right to regulate themselves, on any matter. The air in Montpelier stinks and corrupts common sense. I use Baruth as well with his gun control efforts. He doesn’t like people wearing hunting clothes and gets nervous walking by them.

    A bunch of candy asses.

      • Glad you asked. Not a nickel. I have no interest whatsoever in being involved in this business. I DO, however, have a real strong desire to get our kids out of the backseats of drug dealer’s cars where every conceivable substance is sold to them. So thanks for asking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *