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
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:
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 All'Everybody Is Holding Their Breath': Big Law Lobbying Businesses See Mixed Earnings in Q3
3 minute readLawyers in Big Law Kick Off Fundraising and Organizing for Kamala Harris
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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