Competing cannabis bills get first hearing

With two competing cannabis legalization bills under consideration, much of the debate Saturday, Feb. 13, in the House Health and Human Services Committee was about how – not whether -- to tax and regulate the legal sale of marijuana.

Unlike in past years, no law enforcement officers weighed in during the public-comment part of the meeting. Only two people opposed the bills: Allen Sanchez, executive director of the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops, said he was concerned about parenting under the influence; and, Jack Bent, of the New Mexico Business Coalition, noted that fatal car crashes and emergency room visits both increased in Colorado after legalization.

Much of the public comment came from those opposing one bill and supporting the other, with the obvious goal of trying to ensure they will be able to get their share of the pie once legal sales begin.

House Bill 12, sponsored by Rep. Javier Martinez, D-Albuquerque, is similar to a bill introduced in 2019 that passed in the House but never made it to the Senate floor. House Bill 17 was described by sponsor Rep. Tara Lujan, D-Santa Fe, as a more streamlined bill that would establish a framework to tax and sell marijuana but leave many of the details to be handled by a new commission.

Both bills were heard simultaneously Saturday, Feb. 13, without a decision on either after three hours of debate. Chair Debbie Armstrong, D-Albuquerque, a cosponsor of HB12, said debate would resume Monday, Feb. 15. She encouraged sponsors of the two bills to meet before then and try to find areas of agreement.

“You have the rest of the weekend to think about that and give us an indication Monday as to where you have agreed, so we can have that before it moves on to the next committee,” Debbie Armstron said.

One of the major differences between the two bills is that HB12 would allow for home growing and has no limits for commercial licenses or plants. Supporters of HB17 said HB12 would result in overproduction, leading to an increase in supply for the black market. Martinez said supporters wanted to ensure medical marijuana patients would not have their supplies threatened, and that all New Mexicans had a chance to get a license and start a new business.

Unlike alcohol licenses, which have a strict limit and can be sold, often for $1 million or more, cannabis licenses would have to be renewed yearly, and could not be sold or transferred, Martinez said.

There are also differences in how sales would be taxed and where the money would go. HB12 would give each county the option of imposing a gross-receipts tax, and would earmark some of the money for the low-income medical patient subsidy fund and the community grants reinvestment fund. HB17 would have a tax rate of 20 percent throughout the state with no earmarks on revenue.

It wasn’t until later in the meeting that Rep. Gail Armstrong, R-Magdalena, asked if law enforcement was in support of either bill, and Rep. Stefani Lord, R-Sandia Park, asked if there were a way to test for inebriated drivers.

Martinez conceded that law enforcement remains opposed. And, Debbie Armstrong acknowledged, there is no reliable chemical test for marijuana as there is for alcohol. But, she said, there is specialized training to allow officers to identify when a driver is impaired.

Lord said her district is divided 50/50 on the issue, but she would be voting “no.” She said her primary concern is the fact federal regulations make it illegal to possess both marijuana and a firearm.

“I just want to make sure my people know, you cannot buy a gun through an FFL (federal firearms licensed dealer) if you smoke marijuana,” She said. “You can’t buy ammunition either if you smoke pot. And you can’t get a concealed-carry license, either.”

Gail Armstrong said her district also is divided. She said she wanted to ensure marijuana growers did not deplete groundwater needed by farmers and ranchers and that rural communities are protected.

“For my community to benefit, and for the state of New Mexico to benefit, I do want it to have both rural and urban working on this,” she said. “I do have some concerns, and I look forward to seeing what becomes of this bill.”

Rep. Phelps Anderson, I-Roswell, asked about the impact of marijuana consumption on young users. Dr. Neal Bowen, director of the Behavioral Health Services Division for the Human Services Department agreed there are severe risks for young users. Sponsors stressed that sales to teens would be illegal. And, they argued, education programs giving teens accurate information on the harmful effects of marijuana are more effective than prohibition.

“We need to create a culture of responsible use,” Martinez said, adding that the same concept applies for alcohol and vaping.

Debbie Armstrong said as long as the drug is illegal, the only message from the school can be “just say no.” This will give students the information they need to make informed decisions when they come of age, she said

The debate was scheduled to resume Monday morning, Feb. 15. No additional public comment was scheduled. Debbie Armstrong said representatives would vote on the two bills individually if the sponsors are unable to reach a compromise.

“I hope that we can finish this up on Monday and move one or both or a combo, or at least understand the intent of a combo, on Monday when we vote,” she said. The bills are scheduled to go next to the Judiciary Committee.

Two marijuana legalization bills also have been introduced in the Senate: Senate Bill 13, sponsored by Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto; and SB 288, sponsored by Sen. Cliff Pirtle, R-Roswell. Both are awaiting their first hearing in the Tax, Business and Transportation Committee.

Walter Rubel can be reached at waltrubel@gmail.com.