Editor’s note: Jon Margolis is VTDigger’s political columnist.
[L]ate Monday morning, word began to spread around the Statehouse corridors — in that amorphous, murky, manner in which word spreads around Statehouse corridors — that House Democrats were going to sneak off to another building so they could discuss the marijuana bill without being overheard by any of those pesky news reporters.
Asked about the plan by pesky news reporters, Democratic House members seemed either genuinely unaware or deliberately tight-lipped.
“You’ll never hear it from me,” said Rep. Tony Klein of East Montpelier, when asked where the meeting was going to be held.
So Klein knew that such a meeting was planned?
Maybe. Or maybe the veteran lawmaker, who now and then displays a predisposition toward impishness, was having a little fun at the pesky news reporter’s expense.
But the plan to skip out of the Statehouse to hold a secret meeting was scuttled rather quickly. At noon, House Democrats did discuss the subject of marijuana decriminalization in their usual caucus room with the usual complement of pesky news reporters taking notes and running tape recorders.
It’s not hard to see why lawmakers might want to discuss marijuana behind closed doors. As one of them said, “It’s a politically sensitive subject.”
Just the kind that should be discussed openly, as the Democrats ended up doing, apparently with no less candor than they would have had they been holed up in a private grotto. Some worried that decriminalized marijuana would be easier for teenagers to get. Others were disappointed that the House would not consider outright legalization.
The politics of pot as practiced in this year’s legislative session are both curious and instructive. By all indications, most Vermonters favor legalizing the drug. The most recent poll, taken last September by the Castleton Polling Institute showed a 56-to-34 percent majority in favor of a bill “to legalize and regulate marijuana for recreational use.”
That’s not a huge majority, but it’s a healthy one. Most Democrats in the poll favored legalization (though approval among independents was even higher) so with a Legislature dominated by Democrats and Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin, an advocate of legalization, a simple political outlook would seem to favor passage of a bill to permit Vermonters to toke away at their convenience.
But legislative politics are rarely simple. Agreeing in general that marijuana should be legal is one thing. Agreeing on just how it should be legal and how it should be available is something else altogether.
As early as February, the Senate, prodded by Shumlin, passed a bill allowing Vermonters to possess up to an ounce of marijuana for recreational use, and creating a statewide system of licensed growers and retailers.
That was plenty of time for the House to act. But the House didn’t like that bill. Some House members didn’t like the idea of having the state establish a commercial marijuana system at all. Other didn’t like the system the Senate bill created, with a set number of cultivators, laboratories, and retailers.
So the House is toying with other approaches: permitting Vermonters to grow two marijuana plants per household; or just decriminalizing more than the one ounce per person that is already permitted. As Monday dragged on, House Democrats were still conferring with one another to see if they could come up with some kind of pot legislation a majority could support.
As is often the case in the Legislature, progress on a pot bill is being slowed because not all the major players were in accord. Shumlin, coming toward the end of his last legislative session as governor, no doubt saw marijuana legalization as part of the legacy he hopes to leave the state. Another big booster is Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Sears of North Bennington, who has been trying to attach the bill the Senate passed (S.241) to a measure the House will have to vote on.
But House Speaker Shap Smith is less enthusiastic. It isn’t that Smith is opposed to legalizing marijuana. But in the past he has expressed some qualms about just how it should be legalized. And he is clearly opposed to making this a party vote. He’s not going to exert any pressure on members of the Democratic caucus to support any version of a pot legalization bill.
Neither are his lieutenants. At the Democratic Caucus, Assistant Majority Leader Kate Webb of Shelburne told the members she’d like to know how they are likely to vote, but only to get a head count, not to try to persuade anybody.
For at least two reasons, it would be hard to persuade some of those Democratic House members to support any pot bill even though most of their constituents do.
One reason is that the most outspoken of their constituents do not. As House Majority Leader Sarah Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford put it, “there is an imbalance in intensity” on this issue, with the opponents being more intense.
The opponents also tend to be older. Older people are more likely to vote. Office-holders are reluctant to displease intense constituents who vote.
The other reason is that the legislators themselves — as individuals — have their doubts. Some are concerned whether young people will have an easier time getting marijuana if the law tolerates it. Others are uneasy about the prospect of pot stores in their towns, hence the reluctance to adopt the Senate’s plan to establish a legal commercial marijuana system.
By refusing to do that, they would seem to be assuring the survival of the existing illegal commercial marijuana system.
But that’s their judgement, which they are exercising, apparently defying the wishes of their constituents in the process. That’s how representative democracy works.
