This Connecticut Senator voted against legalizing marijuana — here’s why
Of
Connecticut became the 18th state in the union to legalize recreational marijuana in June 2021 when Governor Ned Lamont signed the law into law.
The law, which allows adults 21 and older to possess up to 1.5 ounces of cannabis, went into effect July 1, and recreational marijuana sales are scheduled to begin this spring. “People have been working on this for 10 years,” Lamont said at the time. “It was a long time coming. I think we have a good law that puts public health first.”
Photo by FotografiaBasica/Getty Images
RELATED: Recreational marijuana now legal in Connecticut as government signs law
The state Department of Consumer Protection announced earlier this month that over 15,600 companies have applied for licenses to sell recreational cannabis.
A total of 8,357 applications were filed before the deadline for the first six licenses granted to social justice applicants, Central Maine reported. The remaining 7,245 adult cannabis retail license applications were submitted to a general lottery.
According to the Connecticut state website, the lottery is conducted after all Social Justice applicants have been selected. Additionally, starting July 1, 2023, up to 75% of marijuana excise tax revenue will be used to fund social justice efforts.
As Connecticut’s adult-use cannabis industry gets closer to launch, it appears that more work needs to be done to achieve social justice.
Senator calls for more social justice
The Social Equity Council, a cornerstone of the legalization program, is tasked with overseeing how Connecticut’s nascent industry addresses the historic harms of cannabis criminalization.
Still, some state officials say they’re concerned the current rules won’t make things easier for minority communities when it comes to obtaining licenses to sell and grow cannabis. He explains why.
Dennis Bradley (D-Bridgeport), one of four state senators who voted against the law, said the licensing process favors companies that already have marijuana permits and operate cannabis businesses in other states, Bradley told CT’s Cate Hewitt examiner.
“I don’t see the current model as an effective model to make it easier for minority entrepreneurs to come in and get those licenses,” Bradley said. “I just see it’s a way of creating an oligarchy of those who have those licenses to strengthen those licenses and have a stranglehold on the process.”
RELATED: Ban on gift giving of cannabis draws criticism from Connecticut residents
Bradley rightly pointed out that the current model creates an “uneven playing field” in which black and brown communities are locked out of large corporations because legislation allows multiple applications for a license to be submitted at a cost of $250 each.
The senator emphasized that minority communities do not make money from cannabis sales, but are targeted by them. Bradley drew a comparison to problems arising from the widespread acceptance of tobacco, lottery and cigarettes.
“If you go from sea to sea in any urban part of America, whether it’s in Bridgeport, Connecticut, or Compton, California, and all in the middle, you see liquor stores in every single corner of our community, and you see the adverse effects.” that has this on the community, right? Whether it’s domestic violence or theft, larceny or just, you know, a general disability that comes from addiction to a substance,” the senator said.
Photo by Olena Ruban/Getty Images
What should I do?
Bradley offered several solutions to avoid such a scenario.
First, he suggested that the money from marijuana sales should be invested in more educational programs as it would “level it up[s] the playing field.”
The development of strict regulations regarding the number and location of cannabis stores is also essential.
“We need to create red zones or party districts where you can get access and not allow it to go the lottery route and alcohol or tobacco route – we can’t allow that spread – if we do that then hopefully we can.” we’re putting in place the necessary safeguards,” Bradley said.
In addition, counseling and drug rehabilitation services would also make a difference for those in need.
Bradley pointed out that rather than innovating, his Democrats are following what everyone else is doing or has done, using models from other states like Colorado. To avoid repeating the same mistakes, he suggested examining the downstream costs and implications of the cannabis market for adult use.
Bradley concluded with this question: “We say, well, they got all this money from selling marijuana, but then we don’t do the backend study — how much does that cost for police services, emergency response, DCF reports, substance abuse clinics, etc .?”
This article originally appeared on Benzinga and has been republished with permission.
Post a comment: