Members of the Vermont House and Senate stumbled into several areas of disagreement Wednesday — including one a key lawmaker called a “deal killer” — as they began negotiations on legislation that would establish a legal marketplace for marijauana.
Lawmakers clashed over a provision that did not impact marijuana legalization, but was included in the House version of the bill passed in March — a measure that would allow police to pull over drivers who they suspect aren’t wearing seatbelts.
House lawmakers on the conference committee said the provision was a priority aimed at improving highway safety. Currently, police can ticket a person without a seatbelt on, but must have another reason for the stop.
Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and lead sponsor of the bill, called it a “deal killer” and a “huge stumbling block for the Senate.”
Senators have opposed this provision before, arguing that it will lead to an increased number of police stops, which studies show more heavily impact people of color.
“A police officer does not need another reason to pull over a car,” said Senate Minority Leader Joe Benning, R-Caledonia.
“And in the middle of Black Lives Matter conversations, this does exactly the opposite of what we would hope a bill like this would be doing to bring some kind of racial justice into this picture,” he said.
Last year, House lawmakers tried to pass the seat belt provision by adding it to a miscellaneous Department of Motor Vehicles Bill.
Rep. John Gannon, D-Wilmington, said that the measure was a “critical position for the House” and that giving police the ability to enforce seat belt requirements increases seat belt usage by 14% and reduces roadway fatalities by 8%.
As Gannon explained his position, Sears cut him off.
“There’s no point in us continuing to meet if this is a dealbreaker,” Sears said. “We can talk about all the other differences and everything else, but this is a dealbreaker for us. So if the House is going to insist on this provision then we might as well walk away today.”
Both the House and Senate have several differences to hammer out in the coming weeks, if the legislation to create a taxed and regulated market for marijuana is going to become law this year.
The bill first passed the Senate in March of 2019, and passed the House about a year later—February of 2020.
The legislation would clear the way for dispensaries to open up by 2022, establish a Cannabis Control Board to regulate the marketplace and — under the House’s version of the bill — tax the drug at a 20% rate.
The House changed several aspects of the bill, including the addition of a requirement for towns to vote in favor of allowing dispensaries before they could set up shop.
This so-called “opt-in” provision is opposed by the Senate, but endorsed by Gov. Phil Scott, who says it needs to be in place for him to support the bill. The Senate’s bill included an “opt-out” provision, meaning that dispensaries would be allowed to open up unless towns prohibited them.
Benning said the opt-in provision would make it hard for dispensaries, and the new marketplace, to get off the ground in Vermont. It would be difficult for a pot store to plan on opening in a town if it didn’t know which way it was going to vote, he argued.
“This seems to me to throw an obstacle if you are actually trying to establish a tax and regulated market,” Benning said.
“I don’t know any investor who would want to leap into this not knowing ahead of time whether they even have a chance,” he said.
The House bill also includes a provision that would allow police to use saliva tests to screen drivers for drug impairment, if they first obtain a warrant to do so.
The Senate avoided including saliva tests in its version of the legislation over civil liberties concerns.
The saliva testing method is controversial because there is currently no saliva test that can determine whether a person is impaired at the time it is administered.
The test can only determine whether cannabis, or other drugs, are in someone’s system when it is administered. But cannabis can be detectable in a user’s saliva for weeks after it is smoked or consumed, according to testimony.
The governor has said that in order for him to support the bill, it needs to give police the power to conduct saliva testing without a warrant, that is without authorization from a judge. The House rejected an effort to approve warrantless saliva testing earlier this year.
Sears said the saliva test “remains a big difference” between the House and the Senate.
He said some senators, including himself, could support the tests now that the House has added a warrant requirement, but that some are still “adamantly opposed.”
House Speaker Mitzi Johnson, D-South Hero, suggested she would be open to an alternative to saliva testing, but the bill still needs to include initiatives to improve roadside safety.
“If it’s not saliva, it needs to be something that will assure Vermonters that our roadways are not going to be made more dangerous by increasing the availability and accessibility of cannabis,” Johnson said.
She said the House and Senate are “pretty far apart” on the bill, and that her chamber would be willing to walk away from the legislation if an adequate compromise isn’t reached.
“There are some really key things involving prevention, involving highway safety and involving restriction of product that are critical to the House. And without them, we’re perfectly willing to say ‘Thank you very much. We’ll see you in January,'” Johnson said.
She said the House feels strongly about the changes it made in the bill fund drug use prevention initiatives and implement stricter THC level limits for cannabis products.
Under the House’s bill, 30% of the revenue raised by the cannabis excise tax would also be directed to a statewide drug use prevention fund.
Senate President Pro Tem Tim Ashe, D/P Chittenden, said he believes the House and the Senate will be able to reach an agreement.
“I believe we can get the bill done. Each side will need to make compromises. Obviously some differences are easier to resolve than others,” Ashe said in a statement.
“For instance, we’ll be doing everything we can to find an agreement that does not erode civil liberties when it comes to testing for impairment.”
Ashe said he personally opposes saliva testing “because there is absolutely no science behind it.”
“If a compromise included one, it absolutely must respect our civil liberties and Constitutional rights,” Ashe said.
