Share Email 39 Shares

Editor’s note: This commentary is by John Klar, a Vermont grass-fed beef and sheep farmer, and an attorney and pastor who lives in Irasburg.

Our new governor seeks to play both sides of the political fence with regard to marijuana legalization. His mantra of “not now” is the coward’s term for “no.” Gov. Phil Scott has said that “… he’d prefer legislators focus on economic issues.” (“Scott Administration Opposes Vermont Marijuana Legalization Bill,” Terri Hallenbeck, Seven Days, Feb. 9, 2017). Yet he has advanced an overreaching bill that commands our law enforcement personnel to refuse to cooperate with federal immigration law, and he has refused to issue a veto threat against recently proposed legislation that would require all Vermonters to undergo universal background checks for gun sales (“Gun Sense renews push for universal background checks,” Neal P. Goswami, Vermont Press Bureau, Jan. 10, 2017). Apparently his preference for economic issues only pertains to cannabis use.

Get all of VTDigger's daily news. You'll never miss a story with our daily headlines in your inbox.

In a June 22, 2016, VPR interview, Mr. Scott stated of marijuana legalization, “We can’t afford to make any mistakes here. So I’m not saying never. I’m saying it’s the timing’s not right. It’s not now.” In the recent Seven Days article, Gov. Scott is quoted as saying “I didn’t say, ‘Never.’ I said, ‘Not now.’” But the travesty of this position is manifest: not only is the governor leaving draconian laws in place which incarcerate citizens for victimless crimes, he is upping the ante by linking decriminalization to driving tests for cannabis.

To raise the false specter of pot-smoking motorists is to echo the Reefer Madness paranoia of a well-discredited past. Gov. Scott is suggesting that decriminalization will cause an increase in the number of stoned motorists on our roads, for which there is no evidence. A similar ignorance imbued the campaign by some to block the distribution of free needles to addicts in the midst of the AIDS epidemic: subsequent studies revealed that free needles did stem the spread of HIV, and did not increase the use of IV drugs.

Why should someone using cannabis brownies to fend off chemotherapy nausea, or battle chronic pain, have to be threatened with prison because someone else might drive stoned and the police don’t yet have a test?

Our roads are threatened daily by drunken drivers, for whom we have a test. But if there is an accident, we have tests for cannabis also. But what Mr. Scott knows full well is that we have not established a legal limit for what amount of cannabinoids is dangerous. Without such a discussion, there can be no driving law — and thus “not now” means, essentially “never” — the opposite of what Mr. Scott states.

We must not tolerate such subterfuge. We have a horrific opioid epidemic in Vermont. I am personally seeing more and more people addicted to pharmaceuticals because of routine surgeries, and then transferred to methadone clinics. Does the governor have a routine test for methadone? If not, how can we allow it to be dispensed legally by the state?

VTDigger is underwritten by:

There are numerous federal laws that protect people from discrimination if they are under “medication-assisted treatment” (see, e.g., “Rights For Individuals on Medication-Assisted Treatment,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). There is no legal protection for users of illegal drugs like cannabis — just for the profitable drugs that are peddled by pharmaceutical companies and physicians to (supposedly) wean people off illegal narcotics.

So our governor is worse than disingenuous. Perhaps the energy he employs defying federal immigration laws should be invested in standing up forcefully for Vermonters’ clear and longstanding rights to bear arms, or to defy federal laws which incarcerate Vermonters for smoking pot in their own living rooms. Why should someone using cannabis brownies to fend off chemotherapy nausea, or battle chronic pain, have to be threatened with prison because someone else might drive stoned and the police don’t yet have a test?

Vermont has a medical marijuana registry, regardless of the absence of a roadside test. But the relief from state criminalization for medical marijuana use does not protect our citizens from federal law, and our state appears to be providing the names of those on the marijuana registry to the federal government, so that they won’t be able to buy guns — they are on a federal list. Perhaps our governor will also demand a test to ensure gun owners aren’t stoned before he legalizes pot, to stigmatize both marijuana use and gun ownership simultaneously. (There is no restriction on alcoholics owning guns.)

The real issue here is whether or not we continue to threaten non-violent cannabis users with incarceration. Our government shields methadone and suboxone addicts from “discrimination,” while threatening recreational homebound pot smokers with prison or arrest … because “we don’t have a test yet.” What are they smoking in the Vermont Legislature? Do we have a test for them to take before enacting new laws, higher taxes, and increased fees? “Not now. Maybe later.” How do we know we are not under “stoned governance?”