ADVOCACY / BILL H.612 CAMPAIGN
Bill H.612 Campaign
IT’S NOT OVER YET! Help Stop Last Minute Regressive Changes for Outdoor Cannabis Cultivators!
The Miscellaneous Cannabis Bill (H.612) continues to shift in these final days of the session, and we need to protect it from being a vehicle for changes to existing law which could have a substantial negative impact on outdoor cultivators.
Ask your senators to not support any version of H.612 which contains either the removal of the “right to farm” / agricultural nuisance status from outdoor cultivators, or new “preferred cultivation districts” created by the municipalities.
The Senate and House will have to deal with this bill on the floor over the next few days - so contact your Senators and House Representatives NOW and let them know that dramatically changing existing law demands adequate engagement with communities and understanding of impacts – and that has not occurred with this proposed policy change proposal, but would be accomplished with a report and process included in the bill.
The siting of cannabis cultivation in densely populated areas of Vermont and the role of municipal oversight is an important conversation to have, but there must be a reasonable process which directly and broadly engages stakeholders directly impacted, and which thoroughly assesses the impacts of any proposed restrictions or additional regulation before enacting them into law.
Take Action Now
Retailers, manufacturers, cultivators, testing labs, wholesalers, and friends of the plant – if you want outdoor cultivators in Vermont's adult-use marketplace, now is the time to speak up with 2 easy steps.
Step One
Look up the Senators and House Representatives using the Legislature's website (link), write down their email addresses and phone numbers.
Step Two
Use the sample message below to urge your local elected officials to protect nuisance protections for Outdoors and have included key points in the campaign tool to draft your message – it is always best to make a message to lawmakers your own. You are their constituent, use this time to share how and why the proposed policy will impact you.
Sample message:
Dear Senator / s ________ (your Senator’s name here) and House Representative / s _________ (your House Representative’s name here),
My name is ____________, I live in _[town]_. [If you are a licensed entity in VT’s cannabis economy, or have another positionality you’d like to communicate, you are welcome to include that here as well]. I am writing you because H.612 - the miscellaneous cannabis bill - was amended in the House and Senate in ways which could negatively impact the entire community of outdoor cultivators, and through a process which lacked equitable representation of the communities affected by the bill.
In order for me to support this legislation, the following changes and amendments must be made:
Amend the legislation to ensure that outdoor producers are provided the same protection from nuisance and rebuttable presumption as farmers - as current law has established. Strike the removal of the “rebuttable presumption” / nuisance protection for outdoor cultivators in § 869 (f)(5) which protects them in the same manner as other agricultural producers, and which in particular protects them from unreasonable bias and nuisance complaints related to the smell of cannabis. This part of the bill was inserted last minute in the Senate Committee on Economic Development, without any meaningful debate or inclusion of the affected community members, and in the face of testimony heard last year by cultivators citing towns’ bias in creating cannabis regulation which functionally prohibited their businesses’ operation.
Don’t accept any amendments which provide additional municipal oversight for outdoor cultivators, such as “preferred cultivation districts” from the original House bill: These sections propose restricting the siting of outdoor cultivation by local municipalities by enabling them to create "preferred districts" for outdoor cultivation. The legislation then establishes maximum and minimum setback requirements and limitations based on whether or not the cultivation occurs within the "preferred" district. This language was developed without adequate research about potential impacts on, or input from, the community of cultivators it would directly affect. It is regressive in the sense that it directly opposes original legislative language protecting the smallest scale of outdoor cultivation from municipal oversight, and legislative changes made last year (based on our advocacy) which were made as a result of testimony provided by multiple producers and organizations supporting them related to extreme barriers and prejudice they were facing as a result of municipal oversight. It directly opposes the intention and trend of treating the outdoor cultivation of cannabis in the same manner as agriculture. This language emerges as a result of one situation brought into the legislature related to a conflict between a single outdoor cultivator, his neighbors, and the municipality in which he resides. If this language goes into effect, the over 200 actively licensed outdoor and mixed-use cultivators in Vermont will be introduced to significant risk and uncertainty which could affect the viability of their businesses, and aspects of the entire marketplace - and it won’t even solve the one conflict which engendered this conversation.
Contact Graham (link) and Geoffrey (link) for more information.
If you are unfamiliar with Bill H.612 and all seventeen (17) of its policy sections, no problem! We have a breakdown and analysis of every section of the bill (link) – give it a read and share it with others.
Get the Word Out
After you take action, share this page to your friends, family, and neighbors urging them to get involved.