Puff, Puff Pass? Connecticut Legislature Changes Course on Marijuana Vote
With five days before the end of the state legislative session, both sides agree there will not be a vote to legalize recreational marijuana in Connecticut this year. It appears the voters might make that choice in a referendum in 2021.
May 30, 2019 at 04:39 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Connecticut Law Tribune
Just a few short months ago, Connecticut legislators from both parties were expecting to legalize recreational marijuana before the end of the legislative session on June 5.
But that date is soon approaching and both sides now agree there will be no vote on legalization this session.
What happened?
Three committees—Judiciary, General Law and Finance, and Revenue and Bonding—approved bills related to legalizing recreational marijuana, but the efforts all died.
Proponents and critics agree the measure didn't have enough support in the full state Legislature.
"I really thought it would pass, but people got scared from the potential backlash from their constituents," said Democratic State Rep. Phil Young, who supports legalization with the criteria that there is proper education and enforcement. "There was just not enough support in the [Democratic] caucus. The Republicans would vote as a block against it, while Democrats are mixed on the issue. The votes are just not there."
Democratic State Sen. Dennis Bradley, who also supported legalization with educational caveats, said many of his colleagues appeared worried about the strong anti-legalization advocacy within the state.
"I think that rhetoric from the right and the demonization of marijuana as the big bad boogeyman got some momentum," Bradley told the Connecticut Law Tribune Thursday. "There were also some within the religious community that were opposed."
One of the strongest anti-legalization voices in the Connecticut Legislature is Republican Rep. Vincent Candelora.
Candelora, who told the Connecticut Law Tribune in November he thought Connecticut would pass a bill allowing for recreational marijuana, said Thursday that things had changed.
"I think the people that were neutral moved to a 'no,'" he said. "I think they moved to a 'no' because of the science. They recognized the negative impacts of marijuana."
But calling Connecticut's medical marijuana laws "the gold standard for the country," Young said he favors legalization for recreational use, if the same efforts that went into medical marijuana legalization were put into legalizing the drug for the rest of the population.
"We went into such fine detail with our medical marijuana laws," Young said. "With medical marijuana all the systems with regard to prescribing and law enforcement were researched and in place. I want to make sure the same thing is done with recreational marijuana. There needs to be things like education and age requirements, meaning at least 21 years old."
Candelora said any financial upsides to OK'ing legalization in Connecticut pale in comparison to the downsides. There are many, he said.
"Just look at Colorado, which has had legal recreational marijuana for several years," Candelora said. "The statistics there show a big negative impact. Car fatalities have increased and homelessness has increased."
Government estimates indicate recreational marijuana could generate upward of $30 million in tax revenue for Connecticut in the first year, according to the Connecticut General Assembly's nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis.
Both sides agree the probable scenario will be a state referendum, most likely in 2021.
If that is the case, Candelora expects the public would vote for it, with help from the pro-marijuana lobbying efforts.
"Taking it to referendum would be a matter of trying to educate the public," Candelora said. "Unfortunately, billions of dollars in industry money will be dumped into advertising to promote legalization. I think a referendum would pass because of the lobbying."
Read More:
Lawmakers on Both Sides Agree: Marijuana Legalization Likely in Connecticut in 2019
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThese Law Firm Leaders Are Optimistic About 2025, Citing Deal Pipeline, International Business
6 minute readGrayRobinson Opens Office in Pensacola, Marking First New Office Since 2019
3 minute readLaw Firms Funnel Millions to Congressional Races, Though Skew Toward Dems
4 minute read'Everybody Is Holding Their Breath': Big Law Lobbying Businesses See Mixed Earnings in Q3
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250