Editor’s note: This commentary is by Laura Subin, a Richmond resident who is an attorney and the director of the Vermont Coalition to Regulate Marijuana.
[]The commentary by Ginny Burley that appeared in VTDigger last month was disheartening on multiple fronts. It relied upon cherry picked and misrepresented data to make unfounded conclusions about what would result from modest reforms to Vermont’s marijuana policy. It is the type of discourse that has created a culture of disinformation around marijuana that has driven decades of harmful practices. Such rhetoric is out of step with what the people of Vermont want and what they know to be true: Adults should not continue to be punished for possessing or growing small amounts of marijuana.
House Bill 170 (H.170) is criminal justice reform legislation that eliminates penalties for adults 21 and older who possess or grow small amounts of marijuana — one ounce of cannabis, two mature (and four immature) plants, and the marijuana harvested from the plants. This will mean that adults no longer have to commit a crime to obtain marijuana. In all 50 states, including Vermont, adults can brew and possess alcohol. The vast majority of the public favors giving adults this same freedom for a far less harmful substance — one that is less toxic, less addictive and is not linked to violence.
By eliminating civil penalties for an ounce or less of marijuana and reducing penalties incrementally for larger amounts, H.170 takes the logical next step from Vermont’s 2013 decriminalization law, legislation that is widely viewed as successful reform. Ms. Burley’s commentary correctly states that H.170 also addresses some “overlooked issues in Vermont’s decriminalization law.” She fails, however, to elaborate on what those critically important issues actually are. Contrary to her assertion, current policy does not “allow” any amount of marijuana, possession of even the smallest amounts of marijuana remains illegal and continues to carry real legal consequences — particularly in regard to search and seizure practices; probation and parole violations; and for Vermonters who still face jail time for growing a couple of marijuana plants.
Furthermore, existing and emerging data clearly demonstrates that the enforcement of marijuana laws and stop and search practices have unfairly targeted people of color. (The War on Marijuana in Black and White, ACLU Foundation, 2013; Driving While Black and Brown in Vermont, Seguino, University of Vermont, Brooks, Cornell University, 2017.) Thousands of civil violations have been issued for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, indicating that enforcement concerns remain important. Penalties for marijuana violations — unfair for anyone who is simply making a safer choice than consuming alcohol — constitute almost a week’s pay for someone earning minimum wage. As a result, they most punish those who make the least. Removing penalties for the smallest amounts of marijuana and adjusting them for larger amounts will make marijuana possession laws fairer and help to alleviate the disproportionate impact those laws have had on minority and low-income Vermonters.
Ms. Burley argues that these critical criminal justice reforms are not worthy of support because this bill does not allocate money for prevention education. She goes a step further by implying that the bill reflects indifference to marijuana prevention education. She essentially calls the chair of the Judiciary Committee a hypocrite for supporting both prevention education and criminal justice reform. She portrays the work of the committee in this light in spite of the fact that, because of her expertise in prevention, she was invited to testify before them earlier this month and again this week. She also ignores the testimony offered to the committee on behalf of the Vermont Department of Health detailing Vermont’s current prevention efforts — efforts that are showing promising signs of effectiveness.
After carefully weighing the evidence, including reliable information about what is happening in states with more liberal marijuana laws, the committee members who support H.170 believe in it because it would work in conjunction with, not at cross purposes to, addressing these other priorities.
According to the health department, based on Vermont’s Youth Risk Behavior survey, teen use of marijuana was down slightly in the decade between 2005 and 2015. The most significant decrease, though too small to indicate a trend, occurred in years 2013 to 2015. This period coincides with the modest liberalization of the Vermont’s marijuana policies that began with a medical marijuana law in 2004 and was followed by decriminalization of an ounce or less in 2013. These facts, which appear to have been considered carefully by members of the Judiciary Committee, fly in the face of Ms. Burley’s implied conclusion that a modest change in marijuana penalties will lead to increased youth use rates.
Ms. Burley makes more direct claims about increases in marijuana use in states that have already legalized. Her unreferenced statement that marijuana use rose in Washington, D.C., after possession of small amounts of marijuana was legalized directly contradicts the testimony that the Judiciary Committee heard from Washington Councilmember David Grosso. It also contradicts a growing body of research that is beginning to demonstrate that legalization does not have a substantial impact on adult use rates. A 2016 Cato Institute report concludes: “state marijuana legalizations have had minimal effect on marijuana use and related outcomes.” The report also notes that, “the absence of significant adverse consequences is especially striking given the sometimes dire predictions made by legalization opponents.” (“Dose of Reality: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations” Cato Institute, 2016.)
Ms. Burley goes on to state that, “in Colorado, traffic accidents, suicides and cases of temporary psychotic breaks spiked in 2013-14.” Although she does not cite her source, the “spike” she refers to is likely attributed to the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Report. Among other well-documented problems with that report, it compares seven months of data in 2013 to 12 months of data in 2014 to create an artificial increase in traffic fatalities. Promulgating data that has been called into question publicly and extensively (see for example, “Supposedly Neutral Federal Report Stacks The Deck Against Marijuana Legalization” Forbes.com, 2015), including in hearings in the Vermont Legislature this year and last, without acknowledging concerns about that data is irresponsible. It is of even greater concern when it is done under the guise of calling for education, as increased education is certain to be counterproductive if it is dishonest.
I heard firsthand the majority of the testimony presented to the Judiciary Committee on H.170 and was witness to the concerns raised by members of the committee in regard to substance abuse prevention and highway safety. It seemed clear to me that these issues are of great concern to them. I have no doubt that the committee members who support H.170 would welcome the opportunity to consider proposals by the appropriate committees — such as Human Service and Transportation — that might improve our public health and make our highways as safe as possible. After carefully weighing the evidence, including reliable information about what is happening in states with more liberal marijuana laws, the committee members who support H.170 believe in it because it would work in conjunction with, not at cross purposes to, addressing these other priorities.
While we support further prevention and education efforts, those efforts should be looked at as a big picture and should focus not only on marijuana, but also far more harmful substances, including alcohol, opiates and tobacco. Diverting money from the tobacco fund, as Ms. Burley suggests, seems particularly unwise given that more than 400,000 Americans each year die from tobacco-related causes, while marijuana is not linked to increased mortality. A robust conversation about how to allocate dollars towards prevention — and what they should be directed to — is already happening. It is a critically important conversation, and it should not be tied to H.170 — legislation that is intended to achieve a different set of goals.
H.170 addresses substantiated problems associated with current marijuana penalties. It is one component of a broad focus on criminal justice reform being undertaken by the House Judiciary Committee. At a moment in history when fears about the erosion of our basic liberties are enormous, it is encouraging to see movement towards justice principles in our Legislature. We should demand that the public discourse about their proposals have as much integrity.
