Action Alert! Stop Regressive Changes for Outdoor Cultivators and Listen to the Real Needs of VT’s Cannabis Community and Economy!
The Miscellaneous Cannabis Bill (H.612) contains changes to existing law which could have a substantial negative impact on outdoor cultivators; and does not contain recommended substantive changes supporting an equitable adult-use marketplace, medical patients and caregivers, and reparative social equity investments which Rural VT and the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition have been advocating for for years.
The VT Cannabis Equity Coalition is a coalition of 5 member-based not-for-profit organizations (Rural VT, NOFA VT, VT Racial Justice Alliance, the VT Growers Association, the Green Mtn +Patients’ Alliance) collectively representing thousands of constituents of VT lawmakers, individuals in the legacy and regulated cannabis community, farmers, farm workers, medical patients, caregivers, and more…yet we often struggle to be heard in committee and have our recommendations acted on, and this session we have seen the narratives of independent lobbyists, the largest and most capital intensive licensees, and a single conflict between one cultivator and one municipality dominate the conversations in committee and consequently what ends up in proposed amendments to H.612. We need your support!
How Can I support?
*sample message included*
Reach out now to your Senators and the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs:
Emails: kramhinsdale@leg.state.vt.us, AClarkson@leg.state.vt.us, acummings@leg.state.vt.us, rbrock@leg.state.vt.us, wharrison@leg.state.vt.us
Request that the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition and community stakeholders be provided adequate time in committee to speak to H.612 and the recommendations we have submitted as public comment
Share your support for our recommendations; focus on what you find most important, share your story about why these changes are important.
Voice your opposition to sections 16 and 17 of H.612. These sections propose restricting the siting of outdoor cultivation by local municipalities by enabling them to create "preferred districts" for outdoor cultivation. The legislation then establishes maximum and minimum setback requirements and limitations based on whether or not the cultivation occurs within the "preferred" district. The setback is a maximum of 100 ft if outside the district, 25 ft if within the district, and 10 ft minimum if there is no zoning.
Reach out to your Senators and the Senate Committee on Agriculture:
Emails: rstarr@leg.state.vt.us, bcollamore@leg.state.vt.us, rawestman@gmail.com, bcampion@leg.state.vt.us, iwrenner@leg.state.vt.us
Thank them for making time to hear from the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition and community stakeholders.
Share your support for our recommendations - in particular the improvements to agricultural status, Section 12 - and ask that they recommend these changes to the Sen. Committee on Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs to be included in H.612
Voice your oppositions to sections 16 and 17 of H.612. These sections propose restricting the siting of outdoor cultivation by local municipalities by enabling them to create "preferred districts" for outdoor cultivation. The legislation then establishes maximum and minimum setback requirements and limitations based on whether or not the cultivation occurs within the "preferred" district. The setback is a maximum of 100 ft if outside the district, 25 ft if within the district, and 10 ft minimum if there is no zoning..
SAMPLE MESSAGE
Dear Senator / s ________ (your Senator’s name here) and Members of the Committee on Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs,
My name is ____________, I live in _[town]_. [If you are a licensed entity in VT’s cannabis economy, or have another positionality you’d like to communicate, you are welcome to include that here as well]. I am writing to you supporting the inclusion of the recommendations of Rural VT and the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition in H.612. This diverse coalition of member-based not for profit groups speaks to the very real needs and experiences of the cannabis community and many of the different constituencies involved and affected by cannabis law over time (from racial equity, to agriculture, to medical).
I would like to specifically draw your attention to… [include what you’d like to emphasize here: striking sections 16 and 17, improving agricultural status, implementing social equity in x,y,z ways, etc.].
This is important to me because…
Thank you for your time and work.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
What’s at Stake? What do lawmakers need to know?
Rejecting Sections 16 and 17 (additional municipal oversight and setbacks for outdoor cultivators): This language was developed without any research about potential impacts on, or input from, the community of cultivators it would directly affect. It is regressive in the sense that it directly opposes original legislative language protecting the smallest scale of outdoor cultivation from municipal oversight, and legislative changes made last year (based on our advocacy) which were made as a result of testimony provided by multiple producers and organizations supporting them related to extreme barriers and prejudice they were facing as a result of municipal oversight. It directly opposes the intention and trend of treating the outdoor cultivation of cannabis in the same manner as agriculture. This language emerges as a result of one situation brought into the legislature related to a conflict between a single outdoor cultivator, his neighbors, and the municipality in which he resides. If this language goes into effect, the over 200 actively licensed outdoor and mixed-use cultivators in Vermont will be introduced to significant risk and uncertainty which could affect the viability of their businesses, and aspects of the entire marketplace. The siting of cannabis cultivation in densely populated areas of Vermont and the role of municipal oversight is an important conversation to have, but there must be a reasonable process which directly and broadly engages stakeholders directly impacted, and which thoroughly assesses the impacts of any proposed restrictions or additional regulation before enacting them into law. Dramatically changing existing law demands adequate engagement with communities and understanding of impacts – and that has not occurred with this proposed policy change.
Agricultural Status: multiple licensed outdoor and mixed use cultivators have provided testimony this session in the House and in the Senate Committee on Agriculture recommending discreet changes in law which would resolve barriers they face because they are not legally “agricultural” businesses; but we have seen none of them included in H.612 to this point. These recommendations are in Section 12 of our recommendations.
Social Equity: Our proposals for social equity are embedded in our recommendations for Section 15 of H.612. As a compromise, and in recognition for the time being of the political difficulty of our greater goals, we propose the following for now:
Legislatively mandating the creation of a Cannabis Social Equity Working group required to report back to the legislature by January 1, 2024. The report will provide recommendations related to the amount of money that is appropriate to commit on a yearly basis from the VT Cannabis Excise Tax towards marginalized and socially disadvantaged community investment, its administration, and more. Seats on the Working Group will be filled by representatives from organizations including, but not limited to: the VT Racial Justice Alliance, the Green Mountain Patients’ Alliance, the Cannabis Control Board, the Land Access and Opportunity Board, the Office of Racial Equity, the Racial Disparities in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice System Advisory Panel, the Health Equity Advisory Commission, and the Agency of Commerce and Community Development.
Making permanent the currently one-time appropriation of $500,000 to the Cannabis Development Fund, and shifting its administration to the CCB as described above.
Other improvements: We have included language and concepts in our recommendations this year which we have now been advocating for for years: from foundational investments in Social Equity and Community Reinvestment, to direct markets for small cultivators and manufacturers, to patient and caregiver centered medical reforms, to public consumption and further expungement. We now have a adult-use and medical program in which there is no ongoing investment from the Cannabis Excise Tax in social equity and repair (unlike most other states, given the racialized criminalization of cannabis and its enforcement), in which the very cultivators of the plants and manufacturers of the products are not able to directly sell their products to the public and must go through middlemen (concentrating market power in the hands of retailer licensees), and in which the consumption laws essentially only allow legal consumption for people who own their own land and / or homes. It is past time to make changes like these and to create a truly equitable cannabis economy in VT.