New Jersey Sen. Ronald Rice. Photo by Carmen Natale/ALM
It's become the bill that keeps on stalling.
The recreational cannabis legalization bill, A-21/S-21, appears at a stalemate—at least for now—as new minefields developed over penalizing minor users, those under 21.
Those involved in the ongoing negotiations say a conditional veto from Gov. Phil Murphy is imminent after a so-called chaser bill was shot down earlier this month. That bill was to bridge language differences between the Governor's Office and the Legislature, and was the chosen format for the governor to sign off on the main cannabis bill in lieu of him issuing a conditional veto.
But it's back to option No. 2 now.
"Probably a CV [is] coming," texted Sen. Nicholas Scutari, D-Union, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and chief architect of S-21, on Tuesday.
As far as what changes the governor is seeking, Scutari responded: "Not exactly sure yet, but most likely stiffer penalties for underage possession."
With that, some legislative sources say the amended bill will be just as doomed as the chaser bill since the Legislative Black Caucus is adamantly opposed to stiffer penalties for minors. The 20-member group, led by Sen. Ronald Rice, D-Essex, has already publicly declared the added provision will set minority communities further back. Those are the same communities, it contends, that S-21/A-21 (the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act) was intended to make whole again by stopping arrests for minor marijuana possession and usage.
"It just doesn't make any sense. There seems to be a contradiction in the action versus what's being said about the concern of Black folks being unjustly treated and harmed, and everyone wanting to protect us," Rice said in a phone interview.
Rice contends he will not support the recreational cannabis bill if it is amended in accordance with the governor's conditional veto if it contains the same language as the failed chaser bill.
"I'm not going to support it," Rice said. "We can't vote for something that [the governor] wants that he keeps saying is going to be good for us, when we know it's going to be bad for us in the long run.
"We don't know what the conditional veto is, but I do know my members are on the same page as to the whole concept and notion of not penalizing young people … with these penalties and fines," Rice said. "Who's going to pay these fines, No. 1? And No. 2, where does this lead to?"
"If you take this to the infinite point … and that's what the governor's people are not doing, you can see some other potential harm that's directly related to the criminal justice system," Rice added. "They [the people in the Governor's Office] just don't want to listen.
"The governor has never said, 'Let me call all the members of the Legislative Black Caucus together and let me have a discussion with them and get a better understanding of what they're talking about.' … It's never been done. They're not talking to us," Rice continued.
"It's almost like we exist and we're being patronized," Rice said. "But we're not at the table like we should be at the table."
Other Democratic lawmakers opposed to the provision calling for stiffer fines for minor users include Sen. Teresa Ruiz, D-Essex, primary sponsor of the marijuana decriminalization bill, who promptly pulled her name off as sponsor of the failed chaser bill after being briefed on the civil penalties provision regarding minors. Ruiz's opposition calls into question the fate of the decriminalization bill, which supporters wanted to be signed by Murphy as complimentary legislation.
Both bills have sat on Murphy's desk since Dec. 17, when the Senate and Assembly voted them through.
On Wednesday, the Governor's Office did not respond to comments on the expected conditional veto of A-21/S-21.
But Murphy has been steadfast on his position that underage cannabis users need to be penalized, though he remained optimistic in his 2021 virtual State of the State Address on Jan. 12 that something could be worked out between his office and the Legislature soon.
The day before the State of the State address, the governor reiterated what he viewed as a shortcoming in A-21/S-21.
"No. 1, the last thing we need is more young kids getting tangled up in the criminal justice system," Murphy said at his regular coronavirus briefing for the media on Jan. 11. "None of us want that, period. Secondly, I'd say with equal passion, this was never about legalizing marijuana for our kids. That was never what this was about. That's not what the voters voted on in the referendum.
"That's not what we've felt strongly and passionately about from moment one," added Murphy. "We've somehow got to thread a needle that gets both of those accomplished."
Rice sees no middle ground on the issue and has called on his caucus members to support the original S-21 measure, without the governor's proposed amendment.
Senate President Stephen Sweeney, D-Gloucester, did not immediately respond to an email seeking a response to Rice's opposition to an amended A-21/S-21, and whether he would post the amended bill in accordance with the governor's conditional veto in the upper chamber.
State voters approved legalizing recreational cannabis use for those 21 and over on the Nov. 3 ballot.
It ended up as a constitutional amendment referendum after legalization legislation failed to garner enough votes in the Senate in spring 2019 over myriad issues and an internecine fight over tax incentives between Murphy and southern New Jersey power broker George Norcross, whose protégé is Sweeney.
The 216-page A-21/S-21, which provides the regulatory framework and taxation scheme for the new industry, mirrors much of what was in the original 2019 bill and was supposed to take effect on Jan. 1. New Year's Day was when all arrests for cannabis possession and use were supposed to cease by law enforcement after the bill was signed by Murphy. That never happened.
More than three weeks later, those tracking the bill closely on behalf of clients say further delay could be costly for New Jersey as the race to legalize cannabis is well underway up and down the East Coast.
Experts in other states with newly legalized cannabis say it took at least a year in those states, including Illinois and Florida, for a full-fledged cannabis market to get up and running after the enabling legislation was signed.
"I think the primary concern is timing," said Seth Tipton, a partner at Florio Perrucci Steinhardt Cappelli Tipton & Taylor in the firm's Phillipsburg office. The firm represents cannabis industry clients. "If you want to be able to sell adult use cannabis in 2021, you need to start growing that product right now in the state.
"We presently have two dozen licensed growers in the state to serve the 100,000 patients that buy medical cannabis," Tipton said. "Adding potentially millions of eligible purchasers to buy cannabis could lead to a dramatic shortage in product."
Suzette Parmley
Trenton Correspondent who covers the N.J. Supreme Court, Governor, Legislature. She also contributes to The Legal Intelligencer and law.com. Suzette joined New Jersey Law Journal in Jan. 2019 from the Philadelphia Inquirer where she was a former Trenton Statehouse Correspondent and Business Reporter/Columnist. Awards: 1st Place for 2020 coverage of NJ Supreme Court; 2019 Specialized Writing Category, 5-time winner of the Business Financial Writing Portfolio Award from the New Jersey Press Association. Graduate of the Fels Center of Government/University of Pennsylvania. Email: [email protected] or follow on Twitter: @SuzParmley