BY MICHAEL OLOHAN
OF PASCACK PRESS/NORTHERN VALLEY PRESS
TRENTON, N.J.—State lawmakers are taking up debate on a long-anticipated marijuana legalization bill Monday, March 18, just a few days after Gov. Phil Murphy announced in broad strokes a landmark agreement on a bill for adult-use recreational sales.
There are billions of dollars in potential tax revenue at stake, and there’s fierce opposition, chiefly from Republicans, to legalizing marijuana in the Garden State—a campaign promise Murphy had hoped to keep in his first 100 days in office.
At press time the bill, announced March 12, is eyed for review by a joint Assembly and Senate budget committee. If it survives, the bill could go up for vote in both chambers March 25, and then it would hit Murphy’s desk.
Or else it would go back to the drawing board: The bill needs 41 votes to pass the 80-member Assembly and 21 votes to pass the 40-member Senate. Published reports as of March 15 suggest that the bill lacks enough support to pass, but lobbying and negotiation are ongoing.
Meanwhile, elected leaders, police chiefs, and residents in the Pascack Valley and Northern Valley areas are watching with interest. An unscientific survey of area mayors and representatives finds no outspoken support for adult-use sales, though opinion is softer for already legal medicinal marijuana.
Harm is seen to youth, increased impaired driving, difficulty in proving driver impairment, and unforeseen costs to municipalities.
Over the past year no area mayor, police chief, or other public official has publicly voiced support for legalization or hosting a cannabis retail business or enterprise.
Marijuana remains illegal on a federal level in the United States, but 10 states and the District of Columbia have allowed its use for recreational purposes.
In his recent state budget address, Murphy included a projected $80 million in potential cannabis tax revenue for fiscal year 2019–2020.
A recent Monmouth University poll showed that 62 percent of the state favors legalization. Nearly 40 percent oppose any type of cannabis business in their towns.
‘A monumental step’
In their March 12 joint statement, Murphy, Senate President Stephen Sweeney, and Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, announced “agreement on the broad outlines of legislation” to legalize recreational marijuana statewide.
“Legalizing adult-use marijuana is a monumental step to reducing disparities in our criminal justice system,” Murphy, a Democrat, said.
He said “months of hard work and thoughtful negotiations” led to him announcing an agreement with “my partners in the Legislature on the broad outlines of adult-use marijuana legislation.”
Murphy added, “I believe that this legislation will establish an industry that brings fairness and economic opportunity to all of our communities, while promoting public safety by ensuring a safe product and allowing law enforcement to focus their resources on serious crimes.”
Coughlin complimented the social justice aspects of the legislation, adding “I’m particularly proud of the social justice components included in this bill.”
He cited provisions in the bill that establish an expedited expungement process for individuals convicted of low-level marijuana offenses.
The leaders said the legislation includes opportunities for “broad-based participation” in the legal cannabis industry for “minority and women-owned business enterprises, low- and middle-income individuals, and disadvantaged communities across the state.”
A final bill was promised soon after. With legislative agreement, neither party appears to favor putting the issue to a referendum, although nine of 10 states that have legal pot have approved it via a public ballot.
A referendum would need legislative approval by August to make it on the November ballot. That route looks unlikely, given that neither Murphy nor Sweeney favor a referendum, whose outcome is a risk for advocates.
Sweeney had said he would not introduce a legalization bill until the votes were there to pass it, and with some Democrats opposed, it was not clear if or when a bill would be introduced.
Local taxes possible
Under the legislation, municipalities will be eligible to receive tax revenue by allowing a marijuana enterprise in town. The bill allows towns to charge a 3 percent excise tax for a legal cannabis retail shop, 2 percent for a cultivation or manufacturing facility, and 1 percent for a municipality with a cannabis wholesaler facility.
It also creates an independent five-member Cannabis Regulatory Commission, with Murphy allowed to appoint three members and one each from the Senate president and Assembly speaker.
At a countywide marijuana forum in late January, District 37 state Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle (D-Englewood) characterized the debate on cannabis as “so many unanswered questions” and suggested New Jersey should first successfully manage its medical marijuana program before legalizing recreational, or adult-use cannabis.
At February’s end, District 39 state Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi (R-River Vale) proposed a bipartisan bill that called for a referendum on marijuana legalization, following Murphy and Sweeney who had just announced a consensus on the “broad strokes” of cannabis legalization legislation.
State Sen. Gerald Cardinale (R-Demarest) fired off a sharp warning immediately after Murphy made the announcement:
“Mark my words: You won’t be able to pull onto the turnpike without encountering a drugged driver. And what about public transit employees? Will bus drivers be able to light up before work, and spend the whole day transporting commuters? We need to think about these problems before rushing towards legalization,” he said in part.
The announcement spoke to a flat statewide tax rate of $42 per ounce. That had been a major sticking point during negotiations.
In their own words
Northern Valley Press and Pascack Press surveyed mayors and legislative leaders in the 37th and 39th districts on their views of legalization. Those who responded said they opposed it, and that’s consistent with a flurry of local ordinances—there are some 50 statewide at last count—that set out bans ahead of legalization.
It is uncertain whether those ordinances will be allowed to stand. Municipalities might be required to pass an ordinance to opt out of any local marijuana enterprises, which will prohibit such businesses for up to five years.
Late in 2018, Hillsdale passed an ordinance opposing recreational marijuana but allowing for a possible future medical marijuana dispensary.
Although he said he adamantly opposes adult-use legalization, Hillsdale Mayor John Ruocco said he favored a local excise tax of 5 percent or higher for legal cannabis-related enterprises.
“My primary concern is that the negative health and societal consequences of legalizing marijuana for recreational use have not been fully assessed or appreciated,” Ruocco said.
He said the lack of hard data on legalization affecting accident rates was a problem warranting further study.
“The harmful long-term effects on driver accident rates in states that have legalized recreational marijuana are only now being adequately studied,” he added.
Ruocco also said he wondered who legalization would “really benefit.”
“There is now considerable doubt that the tax revenue expected to be realized through legalization will actually happen. It may be that only the marijuana entrepreneurs and start-up investors are likely to make money off of this effort,” he said.
Finally, he worried legalization could “send an inconsistent message to our youth, who have been told of the dangers of drug use for decades.”
He said legalization “does not seem to be a smart way” to help balance the state budget.
When asked about the $42 per ounce state tax rate and local tax rate uncertainty, other survey responders criticized it as an unfunded state mandate.
Last September, Democratic Westwood Mayor John Birkner Jr., said his administration was blindsided by a Republican councilwoman’s introduction of a blanket ban on marijuana, which relied on testimony by the chief of police.
Birkner vetoed the ban but was overruled.
He wrote, “With the understanding that marijuana is currently illegal in New Jersey and in most states along with federal designation as a Schedule 1 drug, providing for the allowance of recreational sales and cultivation should not be a permitted use at any such time full legalization should occur. This was the majority opinion of the Planning Board members as well.”
He said at the time the borough was reviewing “the legal basis to make a blanket restriction given the potential for the state of New Jersey to enact legislation that permits the sale of such products to legal adults along with the expansion of the Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, which includes a provision for in home delivery.”
Tenafly Mayor Peter Rustin said in late February that “The state continues to create unfunded mandates and continues to pass legislation without regard to costs such legislation causes municipalities.”
He added, “It’s budget season and the state continues to make it more difficult for municipalities to function without raising taxes. I don’t believe that legalization will be the cash cow the governor is banking on.”
Northvale Mayor Patrick Marana said he opposes legalization because “It’s predominantly driven by state revenue potential.”
He added, “I’ve read several articles about the situation in Colorado. I would rather not have to deal with some of those issues in New Jersey. There were unanticipated local costs in Colorado.”
Marana said he agreed that local costs are likely to exceed state projections.
“I fully support the league’s push for the 5 percent local tax. I don’t think anyone completely understands what the local costs will be. That is clear from the costs documentation published by the State League of Municipalities,” he said.
Marana said town costs would go up for professional fees for town attorneys and planners, covering work on ordinances, zoning codes, and master plans.
He worried about local marijuana issues and impacts and supported the opt-out provision for towns not interested in hosting marijuana-related businesses.
Unintended consequences?
The New Jersey State League of Municipalities cites local costs such as impaired-driver training for police officers, more training for police drug recognition experts (DREs) who can assess a cannabis-impaired individual; court/administrative costs for legal expungements of former marijuana convictions; and higher local insurance, legal fees, and litigation costs.
According to New Jersey Responsible Approaches to Marijuana Policy (RAMP), a state chapter of a national anti-cannabis lobbying group, marijuana legalization “will lead to” increased homelessness, job loss due to marijuana impairment and employer testing, more “drugged driving” due to cannabis impairment, and more traffic accidents and more deaths.
RAMP cites statistics that show traffic deaths up by 151 percent in Colorado since the state’s 2013 legalization, although pro-marijuana groups dispute the figures.
The American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations note Colorado cannot definitely show a connection between the increase and marijuana legalization, saying drivers can test positive for pot’s psychoactive component, or THC, up to 30 days after use.
Another concern for North Jersey towns: Legalization will attract out-of-state visitors looking to buy marijuana, or passing through their towns.
— With additional reporting by John Snyder