Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee advances S 278 after amendment strips appropriations for cannabis funds
Summary
The Senate committee reviewed S 278, a proposal to regulate a commercial cannabis market, and approved a committee amendment that removes reported appropriations (including a $1 million Cannabis Business Development Fund allotment and a $1.68 million Land Access and Opportunity Board allocation); committee members discussed rural access, product limits and the Cannabis Control Board's concerns.
A Senate committee on Thursday considered S 278, a bill to shape Vermont's commercial cannabis market and align state rules with neighboring states, and approved a committee amendment that removes appropriations that had been included in the committee report.
The bill's sponsor described S 278 as an attempt to create “a coherent market that pulls people out of the illicit market” and to harmonize regulations with Massachusetts, New York and other states, while preserving opportunities for local craft growers. The sponsor said the legislation largely mirrors existing approaches used for beer, wine and spirits and was drafted with input from the Cannabis Control Board (CCB).
The committee amendment (draft 1.1), as summarized by Tucker Anderson of Legislative Council, makes a technical cross‑reference correction and removes the appropriations from the report — notably the $1 million earmark for the Cannabis Business Development Fund (administered by the Agency of Commerce and Community Development) and a $1.68 million figure for the Land Access and Opportunity Board (LAOB). Anderson said the amendment’s second change was “completely removing the appropriations from the report.”
Committee members questioned the policy choices behind parts of the bill, including proposals to raise purchase limits (from 1 ounce to 2 ounces in a transaction) and how that change would affect rural consumers who have infrequent access to retailers. The sponsor and other lawmakers defended the increase as responding to consumer access patterns in rural areas, saying some residents make infrequent, bulk purchases akin to a “Costco effect.”
Members also discussed public‑health issues raised previously by the CCB. The sponsor told the committee that the CCB did not support changes to advertising policy and that the committee removed sections that had been most problematic from a public‑health perspective, while keeping other provisions and caps on THC concentrates in line with CCB recommendations.
During public comment, Middlebury retailer Dave Sullivan identified himself and noted that ready‑to‑drink cannabis beverages are limited to 10 milligrams of THC per 12‑ounce can under current rules. Sullivan asked whether draft CCB guidance limiting the number of cans per transaction had been rescinded; a committee staffer confirmed that previous draft guidance imposing a per‑transaction can limit had been rescinded.
After discussion, a member moved the amendment and to report the bill favorably. The amendment as presented removes the LAOB appropriation and the committee proceeded with the motion. The committee recorded its proceedings and prepared to report S 278 with the committee amendment; the record shows the committee moved the bill forward for further consideration.
What happens next: The bill, with the committee amendment striking the reported appropriations, will be reported out of committee for further consideration by the full Senate. The amendment leaves other elements — including fees for delivery and event permits and delivery‑related provisions — intact.
