Richmond one of three Vermont communities to reject cannabis sales

On March 2, 2020, Richmond was one of just three Vermont communities to reject retail cannabis operations in their town, voting down Article 6 with a final tally of 674 to 611.

The same day, 23 other Vermont communities approved similar measures. The margins of all three communities who voted against cannabis retail sales were slim, and opinions in Richmond remain divided.

Since the Richmond Select Board voted to put Article 6 on the ballot, community members have expressed concerns about the health effects of cannabis, impacts on youth, and the possibility of increased drug use, select board Vice Chair Bard Hill wrote in an emailed statement. Many Richmond Community members also took to Front Porch Forum to air opinions prior to the vote.

“One of the biggest drivers that increases substance use is access to that substance,” wrote Margo Austin in a Feb. 20 Front Porch Forum post. A Richmond resident who has worked in drug and alcohol prevention for 20 years at middle and high schools, Austin opposed Article 6.  

“As a proud resident of Richmond, who takes great pride in the positive strides Richmond takes to encourage citizens to make healthy lifestyle choices, [Article 6] works in direct opposition to this goal,” she wrote. Austin testified several times in the Vermont legislature as an expert prevention witness and believes that “when a product is legal, accessible and normalized in the culture use is going to be high,” Austin explained in an email. “We do not need another commercialized drug — period.”

But “Vermonters currently have ready access to cannabis — minors included — through the black market,” asserted Richmond community member Jake Marin, also on Front Porch Forum. Article 6 would have likely replaced “much of the black-market with more controlled access,” he argued.

In Marin’s view, Article 6 would have provided an “opportunity for Richmond… and an equitable system for all adults who want to access cannabis.” Additionally, the article offered “licensing fees and the potential for a 1% retail tax option that could result in some much needed funding for the town,” Marin wrote in an email.

"The concern about normalizing leading to increase consumption is ludicrous, in my opinion,” Marin wrote, “So many people are conflating concerns about substance abuse with a retail license in our town.” Instead, “the vast majority of people who use cannabis, do so responsibly and really enjoy it,” Marin argued.

Many of the discussion in Richmond centered around “not in my back yard statements,” Marin thinks. “Many of the NO folks were picturing it being in the heart of the village where it is right in your face, taking up valuable retail shop space,” he wrote. “A zoning discussion could have allayed those fears, but it didn't really come up, at least not in a practical way.”

Select board Vice Chair Bard Hill agreed that a more detailed article could achieve different results. “Separate but related issues of ‘operations’ e.g. cultivation, processing/manufacturing, retail, and dispensaries are sometimes a bit conflated and it is difficult to clarify this in a simply worded article,” Hill noted, adding that the item “might have been improved by defining ‘operations’ within the article to more clearly specify the scope of the article and vote.”

Still, Hill takes the Richmond cannabis debate as a positive sign. “Different towns can and should be expected to make different decision on specific issues,” Hill wrote. In his view, the contested vote is “evidence that democracy and TMD (town meeting day) seem to remain healthy in Vermont.”