Marijuana Legalization in NY Could Come Later Than Hoped, Lawmakers Say
What was previously thought to be an issue that could be resolved by the end of March, when the state budget is due, could now be dealt with later during this year's legislative session, which ends in June.
February 01, 2019 at 03:54 PM
4 minute read
The timeline for legalizing marijuana for recreational, adult use in New York became unclear this week after Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, D-Bronx, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a fellow Democrat, differed on how quickly they could come to a resolution on the issue.
What was previously thought to be an issue that could be resolved by the end of March, when the state budget is due, could now be dealt with later during this year's legislative session, which ends in June.
Cuomo said during a radio interview on Friday that he still sees a path for an agreement on legalization over the next two months, but that he's open to dealing with the issue after the budget is done if it comes to that.
“Six weeks, in this business, it's a long period of time and I think we've tackled harder, but it does have to be done right and if it can't be done right, we'll do it afterwards,” Cuomo said.
His position was in response to comments made on Thursday by Heastie, who told reporters that lawmakers may not have enough time to deal with marijuana before the budget is due. There are a host of other issues, such as upgrading the mass transit system in New York City, that are also expected to be contentious in the coming months.
Heastie took to Twitter to explain his position after advocates for marijuana legalization expressed concern over pushing legalization further down the road.
“Being honest and saying six weeks may not be enough time to come up with regulations, deal with economic impact on communities and the criminal justice aspects, somehow gets reactions of outrage instead of understanding and acknowledgement of the commitment to get this done,” Heastie tweeted.
The delay would, in theory, not be a long one. Heastie and Cuomo have agreed that marijuana legalization should happen this year, especially with states around New York also considering the change or already implementing it. Massachusetts has legalized the drug for recreational use and Pennsylvania and New Jersey are considering it this year.
There are a slew of differences between the proposals for marijuana legalization from Cuomo and the Legislature, many of which concern who would be allowed to sell the drug for recreational use and how the new law would benefit those previously convicted of low-level drug charges. Cuomo's proposal, for example, would allow medical marijuana companies to enter the recreational market. The Legislature's bill would not.
That's among the many details that still have to be worked out between Cuomo and lawmakers. Elizabeth Kase, a partner at Abrams Fensterman in Manhattan and co-chairwoman of the firm's medical marijuana law group, said the state is more likely to have a better program if it takes the time needed to consider all options.
“Based on what we've seen play out in other states and how local authorities here in New York, including townships and law enforcement, are already pushing back, I believe a reasoned and measured approach to legalization has a lot of merit,” Kase said. “The state needs to make sure its matrix is sound and that all the nuances are thought through before codifying a legalization framework. Otherwise, I could foresee a chaotic and uncertain implementation playing out.”
Among those nuances are changes to the state's laws dealing with law enforcement and criminal records. Lawmakers and attorneys have already raised concerns over road safety after legalization, since there's currently no easy way for standard law enforcement officers to confirm when someone is intoxicated by the drug. The agreement is also expected to address the sealing of records for some low-level marijuana offenses.
The state budget is due by the end of March, after which lawmakers will have three more months to wrap up any unresolved issues before the legislative session is set to end on June 19.
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 AllCourt System Names New Administrative Judges for New York City Courts in Leadership Shakeup
3 minute readRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- 2The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 3Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 4For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 5As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
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