Editor’s note: This commentary is by Bob Orleck, of Randolph, who is a retired pharmacist and lawyer. He served as an assistant attorney general under Vermont Attorney General Jerome Diamond.
[M]ost of the story “Governor says he’ll sign legislation allowing marijuana possession” was based on Bob Kinsel’s interview with Gov. Phil Scott and two online stories from VPR that reported on the discussions in that interview.
One VPR story included a 37-second audio clip with the announcer speaking most of the words and Scott saying just one short thing. The other had the full interview (minus what VPR said was editing for brevity) that was 36 minutes long. It is interesting that the story with the 37-second clip headlined “Scott Ready To Sign Off On Legalizing Possession Cultivation of Marijuana” seemed to be saying that this was “new news,” when, in fact, it was just a repeat of the position that the governor had back in June.
Why would such an “old news” story be put out there in this way to make people think this was “new news”? The Digger article even quotes the governor’s spokesperson: “I don’t think that this was a new proclamation,” and further affirms it was something decided at that time, which was in June.
Could it be that there has been too much good news from the point of those opposing legalization of marijuana that some felt there was a need to upset the cart and make it look like their dreaming that marijuana will inevitably become legal so some can get high will happen? Just recently, the Vermont Medical Society, by resolution, went on record again opposing legalization of marijuana. The head of the Vermont State Police in November before a full meeting of Gov. Scott’s marijuana commission said that legalization will cause additional fatalities on Vermont roadways. Former four-term Gov. Jim Douglas, a couple of weeks ago, spoke out that marijuana legalization for recreational use “is not right for Vermont.” Two of our neighboring states, Maine and New Hampshire, have just turned back legalization measures. There is dire information now coming out of Colorado about the horrid problems with youth use, organized crime, no decrease in opioid deaths and major financial problems — where did all the benefit from tax revenue go?
The stories from VPR seem to have been done in a way that was meant to leave the reader with the feeling that this was new news. Just listening to the story with the 37-second clip, you would be justified to believe that. I know that to be so because I got inundated by people who were upset with this new news. They were aware of the governor’s position back in June, but there was enough confusion in that that they felt he would act in the proper way to protect the children and the driving public if the protections he wanted were shown not to be there or not possible. He constantly emphasizes the need for such protections and one of his main points is to protect the most vulnerable. Children are vulnerable everywhere, in cars and in homes and elsewhere, and everyone is aware of the dangers on the roadways even when there are no impaired drivers. Listening to the 36-minute clip, that had about six minutes of discussion on marijuana (more than basically the one liner in the other clip), you would not get the impression that this was “new news.” Everything the governor said was in the past tense. The governor spoke in terms like: “I did make a commitment” and “I made,” etc.
When I first saw the article it seemed strange that no other media I had seen had reported it. I was immediately suspicious, and I expressed that to many of my online friends. I Googled it and got no results. I found the full article posted with the full audio interview (or at least the part that was left after they edited it). The text of the article barely mentioned marijuana and it was only after listening to 19 minutes of the recording that anything on marijuana showed up. You almost had to be an investigative reporter to find this.
The governor shocked many at the end of the legislative session when he vetoed the bill for legalization for recreational use, but then said he was open to considering signing a bill if it met some of his concerns, primarily those related to protection of children and assuring a roadside test that would provide safety to the driving public. The bill he agreed to could not be voted on thanks to House Republicans who would not suspend the rules to allow the matter to be taken up in the short veto override session in June. The VPR announcer said that House Republicans used “procedural tactics to delay the proposal.” That is not true! This was an override session and the pro-pot legislators were trying to use a tactic to have the rules suspended so the bill could not be properly considered by committees, and the House Republicans would not allow that. Thank you to the House Republicans and to many House Democrats!
In the interview, VPR’s Bob Kinsel asked the governor: “Would you like to see that bill pass right at the beginning of the session?” He never answered, but instead said: “Well, it’s not a priority with me but I did make a commitment that I was supportive of the bill that was put together. It wasn’t everything I wanted but, as you recall, part of that bill was putting a commission together to take a look at things such as highway impairment and taxation and so forth. And I have done that. I have put a commission together, so part of that bill is no longer needed.”
So what exactly is he supporting? He said clearly that the bill wasn’t everything he wanted and then went on to say what it was he did want in the commission report to deal with, which included highway safety and taxation and so forth. The commission is required to report twice — on Jan. 15 on issues of highway safety and so forth and in December on “tax and regulate.” If he had already irreversibly made up his mind, why would he say he did not get all he wanted, ask for a commission to look at highway safety and have them report in January, when all that will be considered at that point is legalization for recreational use. If it were otherwise, the commission and the report would be a sham. And it is a real issue for we know that the commissioner of public safety made it clear that, from the studies and reports, he is convinced that if such legalization is passed, there will be more highway fatalities than would have happened if there was no legalization.
I think most would agree that the governor’s stated position is at best confusing. In the interview he even says he expects the legislation will be sent to committee, that changes will be made on the floor and that he will wait and see if the bill is the same that he, in principle, agreed to back in June.
