ACT NOW: We Must Amend or Reject H.612 - the Miscellaneous Cannabis Bill!
A series of last-minute amendments arrived at through a very poor and non-representative process that substantially affected H.612. Some are positive - like the establishment of a Cannabis Social Equity Working Group including members of our coalition; but some are negative enough that if they continue to be a part of the bill we will work against its passage. We need your support now in getting Senators and House members to bring reasonable yet significant amendments to the bill or to vote against the bill as it goes to the Senate Floor, and likely again to the House over the coming days.
The Problem:
The most severe change made in the Senate is to strike outdoor cultivators’ protection from nuisance (the “rebuttable presumption”) which all farmers and agricultural producers have in VT, and which we achieved passage of last session. The removal of this protection was not debated at all this session, it only surfaced in committee this Monday as an amendment, and no affected stakeholders were invited to provide testimony. In the case of cannabis, this is an important protection for producers as it protects them from unreasonable local bias and nuisance complaints related to the smell of cannabis; which had been occurring or had been threatened to occur for multiple cultivators. Our goal is to achieve scale-appropriate regulations for outdoor cultivators through a public, and representative process - not through hastily arrived at language without meaningful debate, inclusion, or assessment of impact.
Interim setbacks of 50’ from all property lines for new cultivators. This would expire in July 2025, based on recommendations from the CCB to the legislature in January 2025. This is concerning to us, and we would prefer to see it removed. However, at this point, our primary focus is addressing the removal of protection from nuisance.
How Can I support?
Reach out now to your Senators and Representatives and ask them to work to amend the legislation to ensure that outdoor producers are provided the same protection from nuisance and rebuttable presumption as farmers - as current law has established. If this amendment is not made, urge them to vote against the bill. Ideally, we would also remove the 50’ interim setback, but of most importance is the protection from nuisance.
FIND YOUR SENATORS AND REPS HERE!
Sample message:
Dear Senator / s ________ (your Senator’s name here) and House Representative / s _________ (your House Representative’s name here),
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 you because H.612 - the miscellaneous cannabis bill - was amended in the Senate in a way that could negatively impact the entire community of outdoor cultivators, and through a process that lacked equitable representation of the communities affected by the bill.
For me to support this legislation, the following changes and amendments must be made:
Amend the legislation to ensure that outdoor producers are provided the same protection from nuisance and rebuttable presumption as farmers - as current law has established. Strike the removal of the “rebuttable presumption” / nuisance protection for outdoor cultivators in § 869 (f)(5) which protects them in the same manner as other agricultural producers, and which in particular protects them from unreasonable bias and nuisance complaints related to the smell of cannabis. This part of the bill was inserted last minute in the Senate Committee on Economic Development, without any meaningful debate or inclusion of the affected community members, and in the face of testimony heard last year by cultivators citing towns’ bias in creating cannabis regulation which functionally prohibited their businesses’ operation.
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 that directly and broadly engages stakeholders directly impacted, and thoroughly assesses the impacts of any proposed restrictions or additional regulation before enacting them into law. This bill asks the CCB to consult with stakeholders and arrive at recommendations for the legislature for 2025. Dramatically changing existing law demands adequate engagement with communities and understanding of impacts – and that has not occurred with this proposed policy change.
If this change is not made - I urge you to vote against the bill, as the removal of the rebuttable presumption facilitates an imminently tenuous and uncertain environment for outdoor cultivators who are already facing very challenging economic and regulatory dynamics.
Thank you.
Sincerely….
***