Marijuana appears to be tough sell in Legislature

HARTFORD — Recreational marijuana was always a long shot in the 2017 Connecticut General Assembly.

With near-parity among Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate, more contentious bills seem destined for failure. And few are more controversial than those that would legalize the cultivation and sale of marijuana to adults over 21 for non-medical use.

Still, in a tough fiscal year with a projected $1.7 billion deficit in the state budget set to take effect on July 1, lawmakers led by Senate President Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, saw the potential for progressive legislation that could bring in tens of millions of dollars in sales tax revenue.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has threatened, though, to clamp down on states with retail sales. So while the state’s medical marijuana program is attracting more patients and participating physicians, Connecticut is unlikely for now to follow regional neighbors Massachusetts and Maine and approve recreational use.

Looney said Friday that Sessions’ criticism has little effect.

“The issue is still going to be around,” he said in the Capitol. “Other states are moving in that direction. We are contemplating that at some point it could be up to a $60 million-a-year revenue source for us. So I think the issue is going to be with us, this year or in the future.”

Several marijuana bills

There are a variety of marijuana-related bills pending among several committees. One would create a 6 percent tax on sales of medical cannabis.

A bill that would waive registration and licensure fees for veterans applying for the medical marijuana program has a public hearing on Tuesday before the legislative Veterans Committee.

More Information Pending marijuana bills include: Exempting veterans from paying fees for participating in the medical marijuana program. Requiring the DMV to be notified of marijuana-related infractions by juveniles. Allowing those convicted of possessing small amounts of marijuana before October, 2015, to apply for pistol permits from which they are currently banned. Republican and Democratic versions of the retail sale and taxation of recreational marijuana. A bill to remove previous marijuana-related convictions as barriers to obtaining marijuana-related business licenses. Two Republican bills on blood testing for drivers suspected of marijuana intoxication. Establishing a 6 percent tax on ales of medical marijuana. Another would allow patients from out-of-state medical-marijuana programs to visit marijuana dispensaries here while visiting.

Another proposal, in the Judiciary Committee, would allow those convicted of possessing small amounts of marijuana before October 1, 2015 — when state drug laws were relaxed — to apply for pistol permits, from which they are currently prohibited.

A bill filed by Rep. Tom O’Dea, R-New Canaan, an opponent of marijuana legalization, would establish a threshold minimum amount of marijuana’s active chemicals to obtain a motor vehicle conviction for operating under the influence. That and a related proposal by House Minority Leader Themis Klarides, R-Derby, are also pending in the law-writing Judiciary Committee.

All roads lead to the Judiciary Committee

In fact, the 41-member Judiciary Committee is likely to be the burying ground of most marijuana bills this session, with the three co-chairmen on the record against recreational marijuana.

“The vote count is what it is, but we will have a public hearing and each member will make his or her own determination as to how they feel about it,” Rep. William Tong, D-Stamford, one of the three committee chairmen, said in a Friday interview between meetings in the Legislative Office Building. “But we don’t have a bill yet. We just really have a concept. I think there are some people who feel very strongly about it either way, and there are some people who are reserving judgment until it plays out.”

Sen. John A. Kissel, R-Enfield, co-chairman of the panel, said Friday he doesn’t believe there is enough support to successfully get the legalization bill out committee.

“But we haven’t had the public hearing, so let’s see if the public hearing changes people’s minds,” Kissel said. “I am absolutely opposed to it.”

Sen. Michael A. McLachlan, R-Danbury, vice chairman of the committee, said Friday he remains an opponent.

“It’s against federal law,” he said. “I have cousins who live in Denver and they have seen marijuana tourism ruin their city. It’s a disaster. But I was a ‘no’ on medical, because it’s a federal law.”

In 2012, in preparation of the medical cannabis program, the General Assembly voted to downgrade marijuana to a Schedule II drug. Federally, it is still considered an addictive Schedule I drug with no medical uses.

Sen. Paul Doyle, D-Wethersfield, the third Judiciary Committee co-chairman, said Friday that he may vote in favor of the retails-sales bill in committee.

“I’m opposed to it on the floor,” he said Friday. “I would help to get it out of committee, but definitely in the Senate, I would definitely vote no.”

Doyle has been an active opponent. Last year, as ranking member of the Regulation Review Committee, Doyle worked against the expansion of the medical marijuana program, which now has 16,580 patients and eight dispensaries.

“I support the bill,” said Rep. Steve Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, one of 18 co-sponsors of the House version of the retail-sales legislation. Looney is the chief sponsor of the Senate bill.

A potential cash cow or gateway drug?

Tong and Sen. L. Scott Frantz, R-Greenwich, co-chairman of the tax-writing Finance, Revenue & Bonding Committee, said that if the chief selling point for recreational marijuana is the potential tax revenue, it’s just another motive to reject it.

“They’re doing this for all the wrong reasons,” Frantz said Friday. “They’re trying to raise revenue. They’re ignoring the social costs of what I consider to be a gateway drug. I’m pretty convinced that it’s a drug that’s a lot more evil than people think it is. With the change of the chemical make up of that drug today as compared to 25 and 35 years ago, it’s more addictive, I imagine, and it also raises one’s curiosity about other forms of drugs that might be even more dangerous.”

“The money is the wrong reason to do it,” Tong said. “I feel very strongly about that. If you want to have a substantive discussion about the merits of whether it makes sense for us as a policy of the state, let’s do that, which I think we’re going to do. But I think the money is the wrong reason to do it.”