Pa. recreational marijuana legalization bill fails to make it out of committee
Medical marijuana is legal in Pennsylvania, but recreational use is still being debated. (Getty Images)
Less than one week after the state House passed a recreational marijuana bill that would put the commonwealth in charge of sales, a Senate committee voted it down.
Sen. Dan Laughlin (R-Erie), chair of the Senate Justice & Law panel, has authored legislation that would legalize adult-use cannabis, but said he's 'made it pretty crystal clear' that he doesn't believe in the state store model included in House Bill 1200.
Laughlin mentioned that he supported the provisions in House Bill 1200 about no public smoking and handling of DUI's. But, he went through a list of disagreements he had which centered around sales being run by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, regulations surrounding home-grow, and the impact it would have on the state's budget and economy.
House Bill 1200 failed by a 7-3 vote in the Senate Law & Justice Committee on Tuesday.
'I don't view this as a small business-friendly proposal, either,' Laughlin said on Tuesday. 'And the small business, free market approach to adult-use cannabis is very dear to me.'
Laughlin also said he thinks the state selling cannabis and alcohol sends a wrong message to the citizens of the commonwealth and advocated for the creation of a Pennsylvania Cannabis Control Board, should recreational marijuana be legalized.
Senate President Pro Tempore Kim Ward (R-Westmoreland) and Sen. Devlin Robinson (R-Allegheny), who also both voted against it, highlighted the fact that the federal government still classifies marijuana as an illegal substance.
'How do we pay state employees with money that is coming from a federally illegal entity or action?' Ward asked. 'We pay state employees. We're going to pay them in cash?'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Sen. Lisa Boscola (D-Northampton) said she supports the legalization of marijuana, specifically the proposal drafted by Laughlin and state Sen. Sharif Street (D-Philadelphia). But, she said she couldn't support House Bill 1200.
'I don't think it's a serious attempt to advance legalizing marijuana legislation, and I know it has no chance of passing the Senate,' Boscola said. 'So, until we get a little bit more serious and you show me a bill that can pass the Senate and we can all support, I'll be there for you on this issue. I just can't do it today. I need a better bill.'
Sen. Christine Tartaglione (D-Philadelphia) said she supported the bill crafted by Laughlin and Street, but also voted in favor of House Bill 1200 on Tuesday.
'This is a start, and we can build on this,' Targtaglione said. 'Think of it as a vehicle that we can use.'
Tartaglione also criticized what she viewed as the lack of notice given to the committee about the vote and said all four caucuses need to sit down to hash out an agreement on a marijuana legalization proposal.
Laughlin said he believes there's 'certainly space for compromise' on a marijuana legalization proposal, but also expected more back-and-forth between the lawmakers to come up with a bill that could pass both chambers.
'We are not going to get there with this model, at least,' Laughlin said.
'I believe that if there's a path to getting adult-use cannabis passed, the governor himself is going to have to roll his sleeves up and help do some of the work,' Laughlin added. 'I have not seen that yet.'
Shapiro has called for marijuana legalization since he's taken office, describing the matter as an issue of competitiveness and justice.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
33 minutes ago
Big changes are being proposed for a U.S. food aid program
TPresident Donald Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food aid for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food aid program, by the numbers: The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law took effect eliminating a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the county. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion of federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come by shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come by expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents would need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. House Resolution 1, containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts, passed the House last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food aid and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it.
33 minutes ago
Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers
TPresident Donald Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food aid for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food aid program, by the numbers: The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law took effect eliminating a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the county. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion of federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come by shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come by expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents would need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. House Resolution 1, containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts, passed the House last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food aid and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it.
Boston Globe
37 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Democrat Mikie Sherrill and Republican Jack Ciattarelli to face off in race for New Jersey governor
'New Jersey once again stands at the front lines,' she said. 'We are in an American crisis, but not in a war for independence but a fight for our future.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Ciattarelli, a former state lawmaker and small businessman, defeated four rivals. He now heads into the general election seeking to win back the governorship for Republicans after two straight Democratic victories and hoping to build on his 2021 performance when he came within a few percentage points of defeating the current governor, Democrat Phil Murphy, Advertisement Speaking to supporters after his victory Tuesday night, he thanked Trump for endorsing him, telling the crowd 'we won because we were positive, we had the issues that matter.' The crowd loudly booed when he mentioned Murphy and Sherrill, calling her 'Phil Murphy 2.0.' Sherrill defeated a fellow House member, the mayors of the state's two biggest cities, a former top state legislator and the head of the influential teacher's union. Advertisement The general election will undoubtedly cover New Jersey issues, like the high cost of living and sky high property taxes. But it also sets up a clear test for the president, a part-time resident with a long history in New Jersey, who waded into the contest on Ciattarelli's side and was assailed by Sherrill throughout the primary campaign. Sherrill's success She becomes the Democrats' standard-bearer at a time when the state party is looking to win the governorship for a third straight term and the national party is looking for leadership and a message that resonates with voters. Sherrill built her campaign around her personal story: a Naval Academy graduate who flew choppers for the Navy, she went on to work as a federal prosecutor in New Jersey. She first ran for office in 2018, during the midterm election in Trump's first term, winning in a district that the GOP had controlled for years. Her primary campaign, like those of her rivals, focused on finding ways to make the state more affordable, though she shied away during the primary campaign from offering a broad-based plan. She focused instead on more narrow steps such as lowering housing costs by boosting the number of development tax credits so more housing could be built. Fred Martucci, 75, is a retired glazier who voted early in person recently in Trenton. He said he supported Sherrill after seeing her speak at a forum recently where she was confronted with tough questions. 'She was on her feet. She answered every one of them. She's terrific,' he said. Sherrill overcame fellow Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer, Mayors Ras Baraka of Newark and Steven Fulop of Jersey City, former state Senate President Steve Sweeney and New Jersey Education Association head Sean Spiller. Advertisement A win in November would give New Jersey its second female governor after Christine Todd Whitman held the office for two terms as a Republican. Murphy is prohibited from seeking a third consecutive term because of term limits. He didn't endorse a successor in the primary. Ciattarelli's challenge Ciattarelli defeated former talk radio host Bill Spadea, state Sen. Jon Bramnick, former Englewood Cliffs Mayor Mario Kranjac and contractor Justin Barbera to win the GOP primary. As Ciattarelli turns his attention to the general election, he confronts a balancing act in a state that leans toward Democrats but has shown a willingness to elect Republicans as governor. On one hand, he and the president have embraced one another, and Ciattarelli remains popular with the GOP base, which has largely unified after eight years of Democratic control of state government. But to win in November, Ciattarelli will have to appeal to New Jersey's wider electorate, which has never supported Trump in his three presidential campaigns despite the president's strong ties to New Jersey, where he has owned casinos and other high-profile properties. Ciattarelli's campaign touts the president's 2024 performance in the state, where he lost by 6 percentage points compared to a 16-point defeat in 2020, as a sign that the GOP is poised for a comeback. It also notes a decline for Democrats in registration as an indicator that voters are disillusioned with the party that has long prevailed in most statewide elections, though they occasionally have tapped Republicans as governor. A state Assembly member until 2018 when he stepped down to run for governor, Ciattarelli founded medical publishing company Galen Publishing and held local and county positions in Somerset. Advertisement The influence of Trump Trump's endorsement of Ciattarelli in the final month of the primary came after the candidate got to know and understand the 'Make America Great Again' movement, the president said in a social media post. Trump wasn't a factor for Thomas Walton, 45, who supported Ciattarelli because he said he thinks he's best suited to handle the state's financial matters. 'We've had the nation's highest property taxes for years, and no one ever does anything about them, especially the Democrats. He deserves the chance to change the way Trenton works,' Walton said. The two open races for governor this year — the other is in Virginia — could offer signals about how the public is responding to Trump's agenda and whether Democrats have succeeded in their efforts to rebuild after defeat in 2024. New Jersey has been reliably Democratic in Senate and presidential contests for decades. But the odd-year races for governor have tended to swing back and forth, and each of the last three GOP governors has won a second term. Associated Press reporter Bruce Shipkowski in Holmdel, New Jersey, contributed.
