Lawmakers on Both Sides Agree: Marijuana Legalization Likely in Connecticut in 2019
Connecticut legislators are readying for another round of hearings to weigh the possibility of approving recreational marijuana in 2019. Neighboring Massachusetts began legal recreational use on Tuesday.
November 20, 2018 at 01:39 PM
4 minute read
As recreational marijuana became legal in neighboring Massachusetts Tuesday, Connecticut lawmakers on both sides of the legalization debate believe Connecticut will most likely decriminalize marijuana use in its next legislative session.
Both Republican House member Vincent Candelora, who is a strong opponent of legalized marijuana, and Democratic House member Steven Stafstrom Jr., a supporter, believe the votes in the state Legislature will likely swing toward legalization in 2019. The next legislative session runs from Jan. 9 through early June.
Stafstrom, who like Candelora is a member of the Judiciary Committee, said the support of legalization from Democratic Gov.-Elect Ned Lamont could break the gridlock on the topic. Outgoing Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy was opposed to legalization of recreational use.
“I think Lamont can make a big difference,” Stafstrom said. “Certainly in a legislative structure we have a finite amount of time to get bills passed. The Legislature generally wants to focus on those substantive bills that have the best chance of becoming law, Ned Lamont has indicated a willingness to sign a bill (OK'ing legalization). That makes it an easier road to get the bill from start to finish.”
Candelora agreed that passage is probable.
“I would think it would pass,” Candelora told the Connecticut Law Tribune Tuesday. “Many of those opposed to legalization have left the Legislature. I would hope, though, that people would get a better understanding of what the drug is before voting. It's not the marijuana from the 1970s or 1980s. It's a different and more powerful drug.”
Candelora, one of the most outspoken foes of legalization, said he fears what has happened in Colorado, where there is legalization, could happen in Connecticut if it votes to approve.
“People visiting Colorado say they smell pot everywhere,” Candelora said. “It's been ingrained in their society. In Colorado, we have seen an increase in fatalities, in hospital room visits and an increase in homelessness. There are a lot of negatives. Marijuana is mind-altering and addicting.”
Candelora believes, if Connecticut were not mired in debt, legalization would have a harder time in the Nutmeg State.
“The sad reality is revenue is driving this debate,” Candelora said. “If Connecticut did not have this budget crisis, I'm not sure we'd be having this conversation.”
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.
Countering Candelora, Stafstrom said that, by legalizing and regulating marijuana, the state could reduce negative societal impact.
“You can set the minimum age to purchase, which I suspect will be 21,” said Stafstrom, also an associate attorney with Pullman & Comley in Bridgeport. “You are regulating the age, and you can regulate the potency. You can regulate the hours of sale, and you can regulate the method of ingestion.” Stafstrom said he'd be in favor, if Connecticut OKs recreational use, of some of the revenue being set aside for treatment and prevention programs.
In a statement Monday, the pro-marijuana lobbying group Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project, put out a statement on legalization in Massachusetts and urged Connecticut to do the same thing.
“Until cannabis is legalized and regulated, illicit dealers will continue to dominate the market, and Connecticut will miss out on the job creation, tax revenue and other economic benefits that will soon be experienced in neighboring Massachusetts,” said Matt Simon, New England political director for the group.
Related Stories:
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
© 2024 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 AllConnecticut Movers: Year-End Promotions, Hires and an Office Opening
5 minute readGC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Trending Stories
- 1Chicago Federal Court Offers Banks Relief From Illinois' Historic Credit Fee Curbs
- 2Most New Eversheds Sutherland US Partners Are in Atlanta
- 3Graffiti Showdown: Miami Clashes Over Demolition Site Cleanup Before New Year’s
- 4Phila. Jury Awards $15M to Woman Who Slipped on Apartment Building Stairs
- 5Appellate Division Greenlights State Bar's Leadership Diversity Initiatives
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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