Posts tagged Cannabis
IT’S NOT OVER YET! Help Stop Last Minute Regressive Changes for Outdoor Cannabis Cultivators!

The Miscellaneous Cannabis Bill (H.612) continues to shift in these final days of the session, and we need to protect it from being a vehicle for changes to existing law which could have a substantial negative impact on outdoor cultivators.

Ask your senators to not support any version of H.612 which contains either the removal of the “right to farm” / agricultural nuisance status from outdoor cultivators, or new “preferred cultivation districts” created by the municipalities.   

The Senate and House will have to deal with this bill on the floor over the next few days - so contact your Senators and House Representatives NOW and let them know that dramatically changing existing law demands adequate engagement with communities and understanding of impacts – and that has not occurred with this proposed policy change proposal, but would be accomplished with a report and process included in the bill.

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. 

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 House and Senate in ways which could negatively impact the entire community of outdoor cultivators, and through a process which lacked equitable representation of the communities affected by the bill.

In order 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.

  • Don’t accept any amendments which provide additional municipal oversight for outdoor cultivators, such as “preferred cultivation districts” from the original House bill: 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.  This language was developed without adequate 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 - and it won’t even solve the one conflict which engendered this conversation. 

    Thank you for your time and work,
    (Your Name)

    Contact Graham (graham@ruralvermont.org) and Geoffrey (geoffrey@vermontgrowers.org) for more information.

Rural VermontCannabis
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:

Emailsrstarr@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.


Rural VermontCannabis
Cannabis Action Alert: Outdoor Cultivation Should be Treated as Agriculture!

Do you want outdoor cannabis cultivation to be treated like agriculture in Vermont?

Urge the Senate Finance Committee to accept the amendments from the Senate Agriculture Committee related to agricultural exemptions for outdoor cultivators, and to devote portions of the excise tax to the Cannabis Development Fund and a fund for reinvesting in communities who have been disproportionately harmed by the criminalization of cannabis.  See Graham from Rural VT, and Geoffrey from Vermont Growers' Association speak with the House Ag Committee last week about many of these changes.

Emails addresses for Senate Finance Committee members:

acummings@leg.state.vt.us

mmacdonald@leg.state.vt.us

cbray@leg.state.vt.us

rmccormack@leg.state.vt.us

rbrock@leg.state.vt.us

kramhinsdale@leg.state.vt.us

tchittenden@leg.state.vt.us

ACTION ALERT: The Time is NOW for Social & Economic Equity and Agricultural Access in Cannabis!

Big news! The “miscellaneous cannabis bill” (H.270) is in the VT Senate, and there is a rare opportunity to make some real progress towards a cannabis economy which is racially just, economically equitable, and agriculturally accessible in VT!  

TAKE ACTION THIS WEEK!

Contact your representatives and these particular people and committees and ask them to support Rural Vermont and the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition’s policy recommendations for H.270 (scroll down for a draft message and list of VCEC's recommendations and talking points).

WHO TO CONTACT


SAMPLE MESSAGE
(copy, paste, customize!)


To: rstarr@leg.state.vt.us, bcollamore@leg.state.vt.us, rawestman@gmail.com, bcampion@leg.state.vt.us, iwrenner@leg.state.vt.us, kramhinsdale@leg.state.vt.us, AClarkson@leg.state.vt.us, jkitchel@leg.state.vt.us, aperchlik@leg.state.vt.us, rbrock@leg.state.vt.us, acummings@leg.state.vt.us, wharrison@leg.state.vt.us, rsears@leg.state.vt.us, pbaruth@leg.state.vt.us, vlyons@leg.state.vt.us

Subject: H.270 and support for Rural VT / VT Cannabis Equity Coalition Recommendations

Dear members of the Senate Agriculture, Economic Development, and Appropriations Committees,

I support the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition’s priorities to integrate greater racial justice, economic equity, and agricultural access into H.270 and VT’s cannabis laws.

[From here, you can include more about why this is important to you, and add any specific concerns or ideas you’d like to mention from our list below or your own. Lawmakers especially appreciate personalized messages vs. form messages.]

Thank you.


These are some of the reforms we think there is a path to be included in H.270:

  • Social Equity Funding: Cannabis Development Fund and Community Reinvestment Fund

  • Increase the income limit for Tier 1 Manufacturing License

  • Extend the existing Tier 1 Outdoor Cultivation license exemptions to all tiers and types of outdoor cultivation such that it is regulated "in the same manner as" agriculture. 

  • Propagation License and cultivation license sales of seeds and immature plants to the public

  • Medical program reforms

  • Increased plant counts for caregivers and home growers 

  • Address potential Federal Hemp Program conflicts

  • Public Consumption


Here are some specific and narrative bullet points on some of these issues which could be included in your message to lawmakers:

  • Ask VT lawmakers to treat outdoor cannabis cultivation in VT as agriculture to the best of their ability - small farms and farmers are struggling with unnecessary barriers and bias to participate in this market!  Extend all of the Tier 1 outdoor cultivation exemptions to all tiers and types of outdoor cultivation!  

  • Ask VT lawmakers to devote 10% of the cannabis excise task to the Cannabis Development Fund (the fund for social equity applicants which has no long term source of funding), and to create and devote 20% of excise tax funding to the Community Social Equity Program and Board to oversee the direct dispersal of this money into communities which have been disproportionately harmed by the criminalization of cannabis!

  • Ask VT lawmakers to support small farmers and people in the community gardening cannabis at home by allowing smaller tiers of cultivators to directly sell immature plants and seeds to the public, and for the Propagation License proposed in this bill to also include the allowance to sell directly to the public.  People need places to get their seeds and plants locally - and local producers are excited to provide them to their communities!

  • Ask VT lawmakers to respect the knowledge and expertise of VT’s medical cannabis community, caregivers, and patients - and to follow through with the recommendations of the Green Mountain Patients’ Alliance with respect to determining “qualifying medical conditions”, an adequate number of caregivers per patient, and a number of other priorities!

  • There are very few ways of legally consuming cannabis in VT unless you are an owner of private property; and in states like Massachusetts there have continued to be significant racial disparities in arrests post-legalization partially due to laws like this which significantly limit places one can legally consume cannabis.  Ask VT lawmakers to approve public consumption of cannabis anywhere tobacco can be consumed, as has happened in our neighboring state New York.

THANK YOU!

Please be in touch with questions or if you need support in reaching out to your representatives or the relevant Committee members.

Rural VermontCannabis
Cannabis: Basic Needs Not Being Addressed By Cannabis Control Board or VT Legislature

The Basic Needs of Farms, Small Businesses, Medical Patients, and Communities Disproportionately Impacted by the Criminalization of Cannabis are not being Addressed by the VT Legislature or Cannabis Control Board.

The legislature has the ability to take action right now to address clear and present inequities and negative impacts occurring in the cannabis marketplace for farmers and others.  Tell policymakers on the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs that they need to take action this session on our coalition’s priorities by including them in H.270 and by inviting impacted community members and the member-based advocacy organizations in our coalition into the committee to represent themselves and their needs.  We currently have a regulated market in which producers of the crop have no direct market access to the user of the product, in which farmers and outdoor producers face substantial barriers to participating in the market (from municipal regulation and current use, to federal law related to land trusts and programs like NRCS), and in which there is no tax revenue from this economy going towards addressing the impacts of criminalization and disproportionate enforcement in our communities (among other things).

There is harm actively occurring that can be stopped with statutory change.  Many farms and small businesses will lose their investments, livelihoods, and ability to operate this year without an improvement and extension of the exemptions provided to Tier 1 Outdoor Cultivators in Act 158 to all Tiers and types of Outdoor Cultivation license. These exemptions allow this scale of cultivation to be treated in the same manner as farming when it comes to development, municipal regulation, taxation and current use status.  Right now, there are new and existing operations which are dealing with unreasonable and potentially illegal restrictions and processes being enacted at the municipal level which will make it not feasible for them to operate and the Cannabis Control Board has said it is powerless to provide them legal support or advice.    

Contact Graham@ruralvermont.org for more information.

Rural VermontCannabis