Go deeper - join us!
Vermont said no
In a blow to marijuana entrepreneurs and legalization advocates, Vermont Governor Phil Scott vetoed a marijuana legalization bill Wednesday.
Governor Scott provided local media with a thorough explanation of his reasoning to accompany his veto.
His reasons
Notably, he acknowledged the reality that his veto was likely a moot point, given the nationwide, cross-party shift in favor of marijuana legalization that has been clear in the last few election cycles.
The remainder is a detailed and well-reasoned objection, but more than that, a vital read for would-be marijuana entrepreneurs, responsible consumers and indeed pro-legalization commentators like your humble narrator.
Governor Scott’s veto reasoning is a veritable Cliffs Notes for the reasons smart people are still anti-legalization.
Which is awesome, because that means a very smart person who knows how the law works has just provided would-be entrepreneurs and legal consumers alike with a how-to for getting people on board with responsible, profitable cannabusiness.
1. Think of the children!
Governor Scott leads with a cheap shot here, and yeah, it irritates me too. Anybody who’s spent any time dealing with this issue knows that at least as often as that argument constitutes a reasonable objection, it’s deployed to short-circuit a debate by forcing focus onto a single worst-case scenario. Anybody who’s spent any time being younger than 18 – so, everybody, minus American Genius’s much appreciated readership of vat-grown clones – also knows that a case of beer or a handle of vodka is both easier to get and far more likely to kill you than anything you can do with marijuana. Governor Scott is a smart guy who cares about this issue, so I assume he knows that.
He’s making that pitch because it works.
That’s why people use it – because it makes other people genuinely believe the subject is a threat to their children, which is, quite rightly, the end of the argument for any caring parent. That’s a problem entrepreneurs need to address. Marijuana marketing needs to become less about tie-dye and more about “18 and over, please smoke responsibly” before some people will feel safe having it around.
2. Who makes the rules?
This is – dare I say it – fair. Controlled substance regulation in this country is utterly nuts. Your humble narrator was born and raised in a state that has not only dry and wet, but, I swear to Insert Deity Here, moist counties. Kentucky does many things well. Law is not one of them. Responsible lawmakers like Governor Scott have a duty to make sure that kind of nonsense doesn’t happen again, and the legalization and regulation of marijuana is how they intend to discharge that duty.
It’s also a huge opportunity for businesspeople.
Where regulatory bodies exist, third-party input will be vital. Where third-party input is vital, there’s a door to stick your foot in. Nonprofit organizations already represent a major force in marijuana regulation, on both pro- and anti-legalization sides. The latter at least is sure to be represented in regulatory bodies, since to date regulatory bodies have said “ban it. All of it.” If you want a point of view at that table other than that, get yourself a seat. Being part of the regulatory process is cannabusiness’s best chance to cut through the “Reefer Madness” in the name of socially responsible – and profitable – enterprise.
3. What are the numbers
A number of Gov. Scott’s objections come down to a plain fact: the details aren’t done yet. Everything from testable impairment thresholds for automotive offenses to long-term monitoring and reporting protocols for the community impact of legal marijuana is still up in the air. Gov. Scott thinks that’s irresponsible.
Know what? It is.
This is a space where non-government interests in the nonprofit and for-profit field can lead. Nonprofits in particular have decades of data on the impact – or lack thereof – of marijuana on public health. Entrepreneurs can set business standards for boring stuff like THC levels per item and daily sale limits in-house and present them to regulatory boards as a fait accompli.
Legal marijuana is happening
That’s a good thing. But it’s not the last thing. Legal marijuana doesn’t mean we all throw open our shutters on a clear spring morning and start doing profitable, socially responsible cannabusiness. If you’re expecting that, I suspect you’re breaking Biggie’s Rule Four. Never break Biggie’s Rule Four. It means we have to deal with a government that has, to date, had a very simple policy regarding the product in question, and now has to cobble together a very complicated one.
If you don’t do it, they’re gonna.
If you do, though – if non-government interests take responsibility for marijuana and its consequences from day one of legal sales – we may just manage this cannabusiness thing yet.
