Cannabis Update: Legislation, CCB recommendations, and RV Priorities
The legislative session brings the sudden arrival of a number of bills related to cannabis:
S.185, An act relating to miscellaneous cannabis establishment procedures
https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2022/S.185
S.186, An act relating to the Medical Cannabis Registry
https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2022/S.186
S.188, An act relating to regulating licensed small cannabis cultivation as farming
https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2022/S.188
S.154, An act relating to cannabis excise tax revenue and the Vermont State Colleges
https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2022/S.154
S.152, An act relating to the cannabis excise tax and local fees
https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2022/S.152
H.502, An act relating to the cannabis wholesale gross receipts tax
https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2022/H.502
This new need for advocacy and attention intersects with the ongoing Cannabis Control Board rulemaking process, as well as its ongoing meetings addressing proposals to the legislature. We continue to actively work with our coalition partners to affect the rulemaking process by attending and providing testimony at meetings of the Cannabis Control Board (CCB), as well as meeting with members of the Board and offering written testimony. We also continue to hear from members of our community - from cultivators to manufacturers to wholesalers - about their needs and concerns and ideas for an equitable economy around cannabis.
Of the current bills cited above, S.188 is one we are monitoring and intend to testify on. This bill would classify all licensed small cultivators as “agricultural”. It would allow licensed cultivators to purchase and sell seeds and immature plants to one another and licensed wholesalers to sell such products to licensed cultivators. This bill does not support any of the recommendations our coalition has made directly, and we have a number of concerns we intend to share with its sponsors as well as ideas for amending the bill to include our recommendations. Some of our recommendations and concerns include: all outdoor production be classified as “agricultural” (this is a core aspect of our advocacy), we do not think it’s wise to include indoor production as agricultural (as this bill would), we have questions about allowing wholesale license holders to also have the same abilities as nurseries (a separate license category). Senators Sears (Bennington), Pollina (Washington), Benning (Caledonia) and Thomas (Chittenden) are the sponsors of this bill - and it will need to proceed through both ag committees in order to be successful.
The current proposed Rules of the CCB can be found here - they are taking public comment for a period of time. Significantly, last week the CCB voted to affirm a recommendation of its Social Equity Subcommittee that 5% of the excise tax go to the Cannabis Development Fund, and that 20% go to reinvestment in communities which have been disproportionately impacted by the criminalization of cannabis. There are currently no mechanisms ensuring ongoing funding for the Cannabis Development Fund in statute - and no money for reinvestment in communities; so this recommendation will require legislative action, but we have not yet seen anything introduced. Achieving funding for these initiatives from the excise tax as well as vertically integrated dispensaries has been an important recommendation of our coalition from its inception.
We continue to be disappointed to see no direct sales retail option for producers - leaving them price-takers in a wholesale marketplace. Direct markets (the opportunity for a producer to sell their product directly to a consumer) are critical for small farmers’ and businesses’ viability. Direct markets and sales do not mean unregulated sales - scale appropriate regulations exist which ensure that farm stands and stores, home kitchens, farmers markets, and particular products like raw milk and on-farm slaughtered poultry are not required to meet the same regulatory standards as full grocery or retail operations or full kitchens or fully inspected meats. A direct sales license would have a lesser regulatory burden than full retail (only selling product “principally produced on the farm”), and could be limited or expanded in a variety of ways: from a CSA type model (pick-up or delivery), to a salespoint with particular operating hours on-site, to online ordering and pick-up. A marketplace which does not offer accessible direct markets for producers of the very product they produce is not an equitable marketplace, and continues the pattern of undervaluing these people in our economy and policy making. The CCB and legislature are considering additional licenses - now is a good time to explain to your representatives the value and need for this type of license and / or ability for cultivators.
Please be in touch with us about your ideas, concerns, and interests. This is an important time to be active with your legislators on this issue.