Vermont Legislature Proposes Marijuana Decriminalization

Vermont’s House of Representatives judiciary committee recently passed a controversial piece of legislation called Bill H.200 in an effort to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana, which would change the manner in which persons found to be in possession of marijuana will be prosecuted.  This legislation would have a significant impact on the enforcement of marijuana-related crimes.

The legislation was created in large part due to the variety of enforcement mechanisms that exist in different counties in Vermont. According to Representative Linda Waite-Simpson (D), the legislation is meant to remedy this problem.
“[H.200] is about making sure that we are allowing Vermonters across the state to be treated equitably in the criminal justice system,” said Waite-Simpson.

According to representative  Christopher Pearson (Progressive), each county treats marijuana possession differently.  Waite-Simpson explains officers in Chittenden have effectively decriminalized marijuana.

In areas like Chittenden County, police officers routinely throw away small amounts of marijuana and issue warnings rather than pressing criminal charges.

Other counties, however, impose harsher regulations on marijuana possession. In Addison County, for example, residents are charged and punished through Vermont’s criminal justice system for the possession of any amount of marijuana.

“The penalty seems out of line with the act of possessing a small amount of marijuana,” said Pearson.
H.200 would make marijuana possession under two ounces for individuals over 21 a civil offense (the same category as a speeding ticket), and mirror the laws for underage alcohol possession for others.

Many critics of harsh marijuana enforcement claim that the potentially disastrous consequences of marijuana possession are unfair.

Both Waite-Simpson and Pearson mentioned some of the serious repercussions of marijuana convictions under current law. People convicted of marijuana possession are often ineligible for federal financial aid for education, professional licenses and many job opportunities.

“We felt this was really something that would keep people in poverty from accessing tools that might get them out of poverty,” said Waite-Simpson.

Pearson also mentioned this effort would save police departments $750,000 and enable officers time to pursue more serious crimes.

Still, the issue of decriminalizing a controlled substance raises concerns.

“There is concern about the message to our young people,” said Waite-Simpson, referencing other representatives’ concerns that this bill will encourage teens to experiment with marijuana.

Other contentious issues include the difficulty in preventing “drugged driving.” Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) — the active ingredient in marijuana — can remain in an individual’s body for thirty days after usage. Since there is no equivalent of a breathalyzer for marijuana, reliable detection of marijuana users on the road is difficult for officers who are not generally equipped with  blood testing equipment.  The committee has considered assigning a task force to develop a procedure for effectively identifying high drivers.

Another contention involved is the specific quantity decriminalized. The current proposal decriminalizes marijuana under two ounces.  Most states which have enacted similar measures decriminalize one ounce. Critics argue that two ounces is an excessive amount of marijuana for any individual to be carrying around. The committee also recently scrapped a clause that would decriminalize possession of a limited number of marijuana plants.

Despite these concerns, the bill enjoys high support in the legislature.

“I think there will certainly be a heated debate when it comes to the house floor — and perhaps the senate as well — but I think the votes are there,” said Pearson in a recent statement.

More radical measures, like legalization, are not viable, according to Pearson.  Vermont, unlike Colorado, has no referendum system and thus does not give voters — who are much more likely to oppose federal law — the right to change state law through direct democracy.

In addition, most Vermont legislators find full legalization to be too drastic of a change.  Pearson is keeping his ambitions realistic in light of this fact. He and other proponents of drug-legislation reform are being careful not to inflame critics by taking one step at a time.

“We are dealing with a lot of important issues in Montpelier so I would not want to bog down in this one ... it is important but we are dealing with a lot more important things,” said Pearson.