The irony is not lost on Dave Silberman. The Vermont-based drug policy advocate and lawyer who has been working for years to reform the state’s marijuana laws is running for the office of…high bailiff.
No, really. In Vermont, each county elects a high bailiff whose singular responsibility is to arrest the sheriff if they engage in unlawful conduct. Silberman wants to occupy that position in Addison County—and he plans to use it as a platform to advance bold reforms, including legalizing all drugs.
The High Bailiff is the one person in each county who has the authority to arrest the sheriff.
It's a quirky holdover of our British common law roots, but it's also much more.
— Dave Silberman for High Bailiff (@dave4bailiff) May 22, 2020
The candidate recently spoke to Marijuana Moment about the need to have a voice challenging the status quo—rather than someone in law enforcement, as is typically the case for high bailiffs—assume the role.
And Silberman, who played a key role in convincing Vermont lawmakers to legalize cannabis possession and home cultivation in 2018 and is now working to get them to add legal sales, also discussed how his background in marijuana advocacy is informing his campaign.
While the coronavirus pandemic has meant he will have to stump remotely for the time being, the would-be high bailiff is set on reaching voters to engage them, as well as legislators, on the importance of ending the war on drugs and taking a public health-focused approach to substance use issues. And he’s convinced based on conversations in liberal and conservative strongholds alike that the message will resonate.
I'm overwhelmed by the positive response my 8-day old campaign (@dave4bailiff) has received.
— Dave Silberman (@DaveSilberman) May 29, 2020
The following interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Marijuana Moment: You’ve talked about the need to put someone outside of the law enforcement community in the position of high bailiff. Can you expand on that?
Dave Silberman: The office of high bailiff, really it’s a holdover of our British common-law roots. It’s in the Vermont state Constitution. We’re the only state that still has the office. And the office was created in order to ensure that somebody can hold the sheriff to account—that the sheriff is not lawless. The high bailiff is the only person in each county with technical authority to arrest the sheriffs, and that makes it effectively a police oversight role.
Now, over the last five decades or so, the importance of that has been forgotten, and a tradition has taken root, where the position is typically held by a member of the law enforcement community, either the sheriff’s favorite deputy or his political rival that wants to raise awareness and name recognition ahead of a potential challenge for the sheriff, which is also an elected position. But when the people cede the power of oversights of the law enforcement community to the law enforcement community itself, we lose accountability. And when we lose accountability, we get police abuse.
And, so, through our deference to police officers, and without realizing it happened, we've ceded that power of oversight over the law enforcement community to the law enforcement community itself.
The office of High Bailiff should be held by a civilian.
— Dave Silberman for High Bailiff (@dave4bailiff) May 22, 2020
We see this all the time—we saw it recently in Minnesota, and that’s not the only time we’ve seen it—and we see police abuse in Vermont as well. I’m not going to sit here and tell you that electing a civilian as high bailiff is going to fix this problem, but I can absolutely promise you that electing me as high bailiff will shine a bright, bright light on this problem because I’m a loudmouth and I love talking about this stuff and I want to fix these problems.
MM: How is your background in drug policy reform informing your campaign and how would it inform your role if elected?
DS: My rooting in drug policy reform advocacy, it’s really what drove me to run this campaign. The office itself, I am never going to be called upon to arrest the sheriff—but I will have the opportunity to talk directly with voters. As I campaign both for myself and for legislative offices up ballot and our governor’s election or lieutenant governor’s election, I’m going to be going virtually door-to-door—I wanted to go physically door-to-door, but now I’m going to have to do it by phone and I’m going to have to do it by mailing out to voters—but I intend to speak directly with voters about drug policy reform, criminal justice reform in a way that I think appeals across partisan lines.
When I talk with people, for example, about the need to expand access to expungement, I get stronger positive reactions in traditionally conservative strongholds than I do in liberal strongholds in Addison County.
While campaigning, I'll be excited to talk with voters about how, together, we can reform Vermont's criminal justice system so that it delivers more justice, and greater safety, without busting the state's budget or criminalizing poverty or addiction.
— Dave Silberman for High Bailiff (@dave4bailiff) May 22, 2020
I organized a series of expungement clinics with our state’s attorney, our local prosecutor—three of them over the last two years. I went around advertising them, putting up flyers in different businesses. And you know, yeah, the natural food co-op was happy to put up a flyer and the local independent bookstore was happy to put up a flyer—but you know who I had the deepest most meaningful conversations with? It was at the bait-and-tackle and at the McDonald’s because people who have had any exposure to the criminal justice system know that, without expungement, people face a lifetime of collateral consequences of their conviction, even after they’ve paid repay their debt to society. They have a lifetime of daily discrimination in housing and education and employment, banking services.
I’ve always found that talking with voters about issues is meaningful, impactful and helps move issues forward. Since then, we’ve reformed Vermont’s expungement laws, and the legislators in Addison County all voted for those reforms because we talked about them and we put them in the public and we put them in the local newspaper. I’ve been going around this county for years talking about marijuana legalization, and we got that done and we got that done through grassroots advocacy. We’re going to get tax-and-regulate [cannabis reform] done this year too I hope in the same way.
I truly believe that we can do this with broader drug policy reform and broader criminal justice reform as well. That’s what drove me to do this campaign because I really found opportunity through talking with voters and driving up the vote up ballot, to build a coalition of voters and legislators willing to actually get these things done, not just talk about them.
MM: I know you mentioned likely not needing to perform the role of arresting the sheriff, but can you talk me through any scenarios where that might be required?
DS: Look, let’s be real. If the sheriff needs to be arrested, most likely it’ll be the result of some federal investigation. Right? He is absconding funds. He’s engaged in some sort of denial of civil rights. And then the FBI would come in and arrest him because it would be on a federal warrant. I should pause and say, I know our current sheriff, Peter Newton. I trust our current sheriff, Peter Newton. Peter Newton is a law-abiding man and I do not want to imply here at all that I worry about Peter Newton breaking the law. But, you know, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have meaningful oversight in place.
I don’t expect to ever have to do it. But if I did—if I were ever to be called upon to execute an arrest warrant against the sheriff—I would do stuff with a somber state of mind. I would, I presume, have the state’s attorney with me and I presume I would have either the Middlebury Police Department captain or somebody from the state police to assist me. That would be that.
Also, if the sheriff became incapacitated—whether through arrest or otherwise—the high bailiff temporarily assumes the powers of the office of the sheriff. As an attorney with a lot of experience working with very large organizations, I feel like I can handle that sort of several-week-long position. I would immediately look into the books and figure out what’s going on. I would continue to run the operations of the department in a steady state until the governor appointed a replacement, which is what Vermont law provides.
MM: What is the big picture plan if you’re elected high bailiff?
DS: This campaign is part of my sort of 10-year plan to legalize all drugs. And that is, you know, crazy sounding right off the bat, but I’m the kind of person who, when he sets his mind to something, just sticks with it and gets it done. I’ve talked with legislators, people in office today, who recognize that the Portugal [decriminalization] model is a better model. I’ve talked to the legislators who have told me that they would love to vote for a bill to decriminalize all drugs and replace our police-first approach to drug problems with a public health approach.
I believe that there is a good base of a coalition in there that can be built upon if somebody is willing to put in the work and make the effort on a consistent basis. I believe there’s over a dozen members of the House of Representatives—that’s about 10 percent of the House—there’s a long way to go, but it can be done. It can only be done if we can demonstrate that it’s popular. And that’s what I intend to do in this campaign—to talk with voters, get grassroots buy-in and pressure more and more politicians to say, you know what, this is not a crazy idea. This is the right way to do this.
We want to solve Vermont’s opioid crisis? We have to stop trying to arrest our way out of it. We have to actually stop trying to arrest our way out of it, not just saying that we’re going to take a public health approach. We need to stop spending $150 million a year on jails in this state. We spend 9.2 percent of the general fund every year on jails. That’s not cops, that’s not prosecutors, that’s not courts— jails. That robs us of the money we need to solve the underlying problems that actually lead to crimes. And it does nothing—does nothing—to ensure greater safety or reduce problematic drug use. If we replaced the police approach to it with an approach that takes a person in crisis and gives them help, we will actually solve this problem, we will actually drive down the overdose death rate in the state and we’ll make people safer and spend less tax money while we’re at it.
MM: You’re literally the pot guy running for high bailiff. Are you going to lean into that? Will marijuana puns be a part of your campaign?
DS: Look, I am not going to discourage anyone from making a high bailiff joke. I think it’s funny. It’s a little bit of a funny position, right? I take it seriously, I take the duties seriously and I take the opportunity very seriously. But I’m willing to reach voters where they are. And you know, engaging people in the political process sometimes means having a little fun and engaging in some levity. I love the pot puns, send them my way.
That’s not going to be a centerpiece of my campaign. You’re not going to see lawn signs with pot leaves on them. But you know, I’m not going to shy away from it either. My rooting in Vermont politics is drug policy reform and I’m proud of that and there is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of in using cannabis. This stigma—this moral disapproval that we’ve based our drug policy on—means nothing to me.
MM: Do you have plans to use the position of high bailiff as a stepping stone toward running for…higher office down the line?
DS: I’m not in a position in my life today to run for legislative office. I have a kid in high school, I have another kid in sixth grade. It’s just not for me now. I should also say, we have here in Middlebury, two really great state representatives who do good work in the legislature. We have in Addison County, two really great state senators—one of whom is a friend of mine and whose first campaign I didn’t just work on, I was her campaign treasurer when she was elected to office. I am not running this campaign as a marker. I am not running this campaign to threaten anybody for any office. I’m not going to sit here and lie to you and say I will never run for any office, but that is not what I’m focusing on. I don’t see me focusing on that kind of office in the near future.
MM: You lived in Hawaii for a time and you’ve been known to sport some vibrant Hawaiian-style shirts in your Vermont town. Will voters get a taste of that on the trail?
DS: If you are the kind of voter who is deciding who to vote for for high bailiffs based on which candidate has the better aloha shirt collection, I guarantee you, I am your man.
California Governor Approves Changes To Marijuana Banking And Labeling Laws
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a handful of marijuana bills into law on Tuesday, making a series of small adjustments to the nation’s largest legal cannabis system. More sweeping proposals such as overhauling the state’s marijuana regulatory structure will have to wait until next year, the governor said.
Among the biggest of the new changes are revisions to banking and advertising laws. With many legal marijuana businesses are still unable to access financial services, Newsom signed a bill (AB 1525) to remove state penalties against banks that work with cannabis clients.
“This bill has the potential to increase the provisions of financial services to the legal cannabis industry,” Newsom wrote in a signing statement, “and for that reason, I support it.”
Democrats in Congress, meanwhile, have been working for months to remove obstacles to these businesses’ access to financial services at the federal level. A coronavirus relief bill released by House Democratic leaders on Monday is the latest piece of legislation to include marijuana banking protections. Past efforts to include such provisions have been scuttled by Senate Republicans.
In his signing statement on the banking bill, Newsom directed state cannabis regulators to establish rules meant to protect the privacy of marijuana businesses that seek financial services, urging that data be kept confidential and is used only “for the provision of financial services to support licensees.”
Another bill (SB 67) the governor signed on Tuesday will finally establish a cannabis appellation program, meant to indicate where marijuana is grown and how that might influence its character. The system is similar to how wine regions are regulated.
Under the new law, growers and processors under the new law will be forbidden from using the name of a city or other designated region in product marketing unless all of that product’s cannabis is grown in that region. Similar protections already apply at the county level.
For outdoor growers, the new law recognizes the importance of terrior—the unique combination of soil, sun and other environmental factors that can influence the character of a cannabis plant. For indoor growers, it provides a way to represent a hometown or cash in on regional cachet.
Most of the other new changes that the governor signed into law are relatively minor and will likely go unnoticed by consumers. One, for example, builds in more wiggle room on the amount of THC in edibles (AB 1458), while another would allow state-licensed cannabis testing labs to provide services to law enforcement (SB 1244).
The bills were approved by state lawmakers earlier this month, as the state’s legislative session drew to a close.
Other pieces of cannabis legislation passed by the legislature this session were met with the governor’s veto. On Tuesday, Newsom rejected a proposal (AB 1470) that would have allowed processors to submit unpackaged products to testing labs, which industry lobbyists said would reduce costs. Currently products must be submitted in their final form, complete with retail packaging. Newsom said the proposal “conflicts with current regulations…that prevent contaminated and unsafe products from entering the retail market.”
“While I support reducing packaging waste, allowing products to be tested not in their final form could result in consumer harm and have a disproportionate impact on small operators,” Newsom said in a veto statement.
Those changes to testing procedures should instead be considered next year, Newsom said, as part of a pending plan to streamline California’s cannabis licensing and regulatory agencies.
“I have directed my administration to consolidate the state regulatory agencies that currently enforce cannabis health and safety standards to pursue all appropriate measures to ease costs and reduce unnecessary packaging,” he wrote. “This proposal should be considered as part of that process.”
Newsom also last week vetoed a bill (AB 545) that would have begun to dissolve the state Bureau of Cannabis Control, which oversees the legal industry. In a statement, the governor called that legislation “premature” given his plans for broader reform.
“My Administration has proposed consolidating the regulatory authority currently divided between three state entities into one single department,” Newsom wrote, “which we hope to achieve next year in partnership with the Legislature.”
Earlier this month, the governor signed into law one of the industry’s top priorities for the year—a measure (AB 1872) that freezes state cannabis cultivation and excise taxes for the entirety of 2021. The law is intended to provide financial stability for cannabis businesses in California, where taxes on marijuana are among the highest in the nation.
The state’s leading marijuana trade group, the California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA), applauded the governor’s moves. All the bills approved by Newsom this week had the industry group’s support.
“We thank Governor Newsom for prioritizing these bills, which seek to reduce regulatory burdens, improve enforcement, expand financial services and enhance the state’s cannabis appellation’s program,” CCIA Executive Director Lindsay Robinson said in a message to supporters on Wednesday. “Like so many, the cannabis industry has faced a series of unexpected challenges and setbacks in 2020. We look forward to continuing to work with the Newsom Administration, and the Legislature, as we pursue a robust policy agenda in 2021.”
Image element courtesy of Gage Skidmore
Mixed Arizona Marijuana Polls Raise Questions About Legalization Ballot Measure’s Prospects
Reform advocates are anxious to see how a marijuana legalization initiative in Arizona will fare this November. But predicting the outcome is complicated by a new pair of dueling polls that show mixed results.
The campaign behind the legalization measure, Smart and Safe Arizona, shared an internal poll on Wednesday with Marijuana Moment that showed 57 percent of likely voters in support for the effort, with 38 percent in opposition.
The survey, which was conducted September 24-29, shows that 83 percent of supporters say they are certain to vote for the measure. Opposition was just as certain, however, by a margin of 82 percent to 12 percent.
Seventy-two percent of Democrats support the legal cannabis initiative, as do 70 percent of independents and 42 percent of Republicans.
But while those results are largely consistent with several surveys this year have shown varying degrees of majority support for adult-use legalization among Arizona voters, a separate poll released on Tuesday that’s being touted by opponents indicates that the margin is slimmer than advocates would hope—with 46 percent of respondents saying they want the policy change and 45 percent saying they don’t.
n= 600 LVs, MOE +/- 4.0%, Survey Conducted 9/8- 9/10
— OHPI (@OHPredictive) September 29, 2020
When the same firm, OH Predictive Insights (OHPI), conducted a poll asking the same basic question about legalizing cannabis in July, 62 percent of likely voters said they favor legalization. The month prior, about 65 percent said they back the legal cannabis ballot measure in a survey from a different pollster, HighGround.
The notable dip based on the new OHPI poll appears to be largely attributable to declining support among people over 55, those who live in rural areas, independents and Republicans.
“As election day nears, voters appear to be focusing on what’s on the ballot. And while the campaign to oppose marijuana legalization is anemic compared to 2016, voters still have concerns about the effort,” OHPI Chief Mike Noble said in a press release, referring to an earlier legalization initiative that Arizonans rejected four years ago after a campaign in which the opposition received significant funding, including from a pharmaceutical company.
#AZPOP #POLL: “As election day nears, voters appear to be focusing on what’s on the ballot, and while the campaign to oppose marijuana legalization is anemic compared to 2016, voters still have concerns about the effort,” says @MikePNoble
— OHPI (@OHPredictive) September 29, 2020
But the reform campaign isn’t deterred. Far from it, actually. In addition to sharing their internal poll, a spokesperson told Marijuana Moment that the memo for the separate survey showing dwindling support actually bolstered its contributions by another $250,000—in the early part of the day alone.
“We’re giving this poll as much credence as we should—none. It’s absurd to think that while Arizona is on pace to sell a record amount of cannabis ($1.25B) to a record number of cardholders, popularity is waning,” Smart and Safe Arizona Campaign Manager Stacy Pearson told Marijuana Moment, referring to purchases in the state’s existing medical cannabis system. “Cash register receipts and internal polling do not align with OH’s prediction.”
“That said, their polling memo has certainly helped our cause. We have generated more than $250,000 in contributions today, and it’s not even noon,” she said on Tuesday morning.
In the campaign’s internal poll, 65 percent of those surveyed believe the measure, Prop. 207, would have a positive effect on the state’s economy, compared to 26 percent who said it would have a negative effect.
The OHPI poll involved interviews with 600 likely Arizona voters from September 8-10. The internal campaign poll involved 800 respondents.
Colton Grace, communications associate for the prohibitionist group Smart Approaches To Marijuana, told Marijuana Moment after viewing only the OHPI poll that it’s “great to see that the support for marijuana legalization—which is never as popular as the industry claims it is in the first place—is dropping rapidly ahead of the vote in Arizona.”
“This effort is no different than that of 2016 in that it is nothing more than a for-profit scheme that benefits a select group of investors while unleashing serious harms on the majority of the state,” he argued.
Another survey released this month from a separate firm showed that a slim majority of voters (51 percent) support the ballot measure.
Under the legalization initiative, adults could possess up to an ounce of marijuana at a time and cultivate up to six plants for personal use.
The measure also contains several restorative justice provisions such as allowing individuals with prior marijuana convictions to petition the courts for expungements and establishing a social equity ownership program
Cannabis sales would be taxed at 16 percent. Tax revenue would cover implementation costs and then would be divided among funds for community colleges, infrastructure, a justice reinvestment and public services such as police and firefighters.
The Department of Health Services would be responsible for regulating the program and issuing cannabis business licenses. It would also be tasked with deciding on whether to expand the program to allow for delivery services.
Read the full internal poll from the Arizona marijuana legalization campaign below:
Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer.
New Jersey Governor Works To Get Out The Vote For Marijuana Legalization Referendum
The governor of New Jersey is amplifying his support for a marijuana legalization referendum that will appear on the state’s November ballot.
In an email blast sent by the New Jersey Democratic State Committee on Wednesday, Gov. Phil Murphy (D) wrote that legalization was a priority of his as he campaigned for governor, and he emphasized racial disparities in cannabis enforcement.
“Legalization would right those wrongs while also spurring massive economic development opportunities, job creation, and new tax revenue,” he said. “Now, we have the opportunity to get this done and finally legalize adult-use marijuana here in the Garden State, and I need your help to make it happen. Vote Yes on Public Question #1 on your ballot.”
It’s clear that marijuana prohibition is causing serious, lasting damage to our state. Now, we have an opportunity to fix that and finally legalize adult-use marijuana in NJ. Vote Yes on Question 1. #TurnThePage https://t.co/dkq6zsHvVV
— Phil Murphy (@PhilMurphyNJ) September 30, 2020
“It has taken longer than we hoped to get to this point. Many well-meaning leaders have their reasons for opposing legalization, and we take their objections seriously,” he added. “But the overwhelming evidence points to a clear reality that this is something we must do to make our state both stronger and fairer.”
Murphy also wrote about the economic toll of enforcing prohibition, the long-lasting consequences of having a marijuana conviction on a person’s record and the fact that a growing number of states are legalizing cannabis for adult use.
“Voting Yes on Public Question #1 will legalize marijuana for adult use, while also creating a new regulatory structure to make sure operators are following the law and ensure that minors are not able to purchase the product. Legalization will not be the end of the story—there is more work to do, particularly in expunging past marijuana-related offenses. This is our chance to make history in New Jersey, and it’s all up to you.”
The governor said in July that legalizing cannabis is “an incredibly smart thing to do” both from an economic and social justice perspective.
Legalize it. pic.twitter.com/8gIbogvwW4
— Governor Phil Murphy (@GovMurphy) September 29, 2020
Legislators attempted to enact the policy change during the last session, but when negotiations stalled, they opted to put the question to voters in the form of a referendum. If the measure is approved on Election Day, the legislature will then have to pass implementing legislation containing details for how the legal cannabis market will work.
Recent polling indicates that the proposal has strong support among New Jersey voters. A survey from the law firm Brach Eichler that was released last week shows that 65 percent of likely voters are in favor of the policy change. That’s consistent with the results of a poll the firm published last month, signaling that support is steady.
The governor’s message to voters comes one week after NJ CAN 2020, a coalition of civil rights and drug policy reform groups, launched their first video ad promoting the legalization referendum.
In June, the state Assembly passed a cannabis decriminalization bill last month that would make possession of up to two ounces a civil penalty without the threat of jail time.
Read Murphy’s full email in support of approving the legalization measure below:
When I first announced my campaign for Governor, legalizing adult-use marijuana was one of my top priorities. It was as clear then as it is now — marijuana prohibition causes serious, lasting damage to our state, especially to the 35,000 mostly young, Black and Hispanic residents who are arrested for possession of marijuana every year. In fact, Black residents are 3.5 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than White residents. Legalization would right those wrongs while also spurring massive economic development opportunities, job creation, and new tax revenue.
Now, we have the opportunity to get this done and finally legalize adult-use marijuana here in the Garden State, and I need your help to make it happen. Vote Yes on Public Question #1 on your ballot.
It has taken longer than we hoped to get to this point. Many well-meaning leaders have their reasons for opposing legalization, and we take their objections seriously. But the overwhelming evidence points to a clear reality that this is something we must do to make our state both stronger and fairer. Consider for example:
New Jersey spends about $147 million a year on the legal processing of marijuana possession and makes 35,000 annual arrests. Using our public safety dollars for marijuana arrests doesn’t make us any safer. By legalizing adult-use marijuana, we can free up police resources to focus on serious, violent and unsolved crimes, and reinvest those saved dollars into social services.
Our current marijuana laws can ruin lives based on one decision. Under current law, a person can land in jail over marijuana – with a criminal record that stigmatizes them for life and can make it harder to get a job, an apartment or a credit card; to adopt a child; or to visit one’s own children. Legalization has the potential to remove unfairly harsh punishments now suffered by entire families due to marijuana offenses.
Over the past decade, 11 other states and Washington, DC have all legalized adult-use marijuana. These states have not faced significant health or safety problems, have raised billions of dollars for vital public services, and have been able to focus law enforcement on more serious and violent crimes. We know that marijuana legalization works – and passing this ballot measure will allow New Jersey to take advantage of everything that we’ve learned from the states that went before us.
Voting Yes on Public Question #1 will legalize marijuana for adult use, while also creating a new regulatory structure to make sure operators are following the law and ensure that minors are not able to purchase the product. Legalization will not be the end of the story — there is more work to do, particularly in expunging past marijuana-related offenses.
This is our chance to make history in New Jersey, and it’s all up to you. Vote Yes on Public Question #1. You may need to turn over your Vote by Mail ballot or flip to the second page to find Public Questions, so make sure to examine your ballot carefully.