Senate Judiciary considers legislation to legalize cannabis


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
From Left: Jared Moffat, Rebecca McGoldrick, and Diego Arene-Morley testify in support of S510.
From Left: Jared Moffat, Rebecca McGoldrick, and Diego Arene-Morley testify in support of S510.

A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday showed overwhelming support for legislation that would legalize marijuana in Rhode Island after its economic successes in both Colorado and Washington.

Jordan Wellington, a lawyer with Vicente Sederberg LLC in Colorado, came to speak in support of the legislation, S 510. Wellington has worked closely with Colorado’s state government to implement the retail and regulation of marijuana, and now works in their Department of Revenue’s Marijuana Enforcement Division as the single policy analyst.

“Instead of should or shouldn’t we, we discussed how to move forward with this responsibly,” he said.

Wellington said Colorado gained more than 20,000 jobs and saw $900 million in sales that brought in $125 million in tax revenue. The cost of enforcement, he said, was less than $10 million.

Money from the extra revenue was invested in educational programs about cannabis to teach youth about its effects and consequences.

“We have found that some of the messaging to youth has been very effective,” Wellington said. “A very cautious message has been given to Colorado’s youth.”

According to Wellington, Colorado has not been without its challenges by taking this step forward. Regulation and education has been key in making the policy work. “One of the biggest things we did was we put a lot of different restrictions on potency in edibles,” he said.

The question of youth cannabis use was touched upon several times throughout the hearing. Andrew Horwitz, an assistant dean at Roger Williams Law School, who also testified in support of 510, said the prohibition approach aken towards marijuana is completely ineffective, and disingenuous to children.

“We are fundamentally dishonest in the way we talk to our children about marijuana,” Horwitz said. “We talk to them like it’s crack, like its heroin. They know now to believe us, that marijuana does what we claim.”

Horwitz also stated that reforming juvenile use starts from the top, with how the state looks at marijuana as a whole. “We are doing terrible damage by the use of our criminal justice system to deal with a public health issue,” he said.

One of these damages includes a racial disparity in the number of African Americans who are arrested for marijuana related crimes, due to police saturation in communities of color, as well as racial profiling.

“We’re doing a number of things wrong,” he said. “We’re arresting people for distributing marijuana. If you legalize the distribution of marijuana, you eliminate the whole line item of law enforcement.”

Jared Moffat, director of Regulate Rhode Island, also came in support of 510, with an entire binder of studies regarding the legalization in Colorado. The most accurate study of youth use, called Healthy Kids Colorado, looked at 40,000 middle and high school children, and is re-done every two years.

“The best available data on youth marijuana in Colorado shows that the use has remained flat,” he said, especially when in comparison to alcohol and tobacco, which has continually fallen in recent years. Moffat, like Horwitz and Wellington, pointed to education as the key to reducing youth cannabis use. Looking at the context of use is important as well.

“If we are acknowledging that marijuana is available in our schools, we need to acknowledge that is readily available from drug dealers,” Moffat said.

Moffat said many of the studies that opponents brought up against the legalization of marijuana have cherry picked their data in order to make it look like youth use has risen. One such study compared the city of Denver to the United States as a whole.

“If you take any metropolitan area, you’re going to find higher use,” he said.

Youth use was definitely the biggest worry of both legislators and the few opponents who did come out to speak against the bill, such as Debbie Paragini, who came as a Rhode Island parent.

“I feel really upset living in a state that is thinking about legalizing yet another recreational drug. For an economic basis? I don’t understand that,” she said. “As a parent, I think this is a really bad idea.”

Committee considers driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Representative Anastasia Williams testifying for H6174
Representative Anastasia Williams testifying for H6174

“We are not just nomads looking for benefits.”

That’s what Jose Chacon, an undocumented immigrant living in Rhode Island, said to the  House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, in support of H6174, which proposes giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.

“It’s just a human thing to do,” he said.

In its current state, the bill allows undocumented immigrants a valid Rhode Island driver’s license if they can provide documents that reliably establish their name, date of birth, place of birth, and Rhode Island residency, among other pieces of information. Those who are under 18 are still required to undergo driving education.

Representative Anastasia Williams (D-District 9), the primary sponsor of the bill, in her testimony, said the bill has been a long time coming.

“I do believe we are going to come to a crossroad where we address the issues before us,” she said. One of those issues, according to Williams, is safety. If illegal immigrants are granted driver’s licenses, then they will have further access to auto registration and insurance, should they get into a car accident.

“It’s about responsibility, accountability, and a duty,” Williams said, citing that it is state legislature’s duty to ensure that everyone is as safe as possible on the road. “It is time for us to do our due diligence to make sure that these individuals on the road have the proper documentation,” she said.

When asked who would pay for these licenses, Williams responded that the process would operate much like the processes for giving a license to a US citizen.

“Time and resources is something that this General Assembly puts forth for many other things,” she said. “We are not giving out free licenses. These individuals will have to pay for them just like you and I.”

Even with supporters like Chacon, many of which attended the hearing, H6174 still has its fair share of opposition. Terry Gorman, the president of Rhode Islanders for Immigration Law Enforcement, came to testify against the legislation. Gorman found many parts of the bill to be unclear, and even called H6174 an “illegal aliens benefit act.”

“Passing this bill would in effect hold all of you in violation of 8 USC 1324, which prohibits aiding and abetting illegal aliens,” he said. “People said they’re doing it anyway, they’re going to continue doing it. There are child molesters, wife beaters, and bank robbers, doing crimes. Should we just ‘Oh they’re doing it anyway, they’re going to continue doing it?’”

Gorman’s main objection to the bill was that many of the documents that undocumented immigrants would be asked to provide are not valid forms of government identification.

“That needs some sort of clarification as to who is going to verify that information, and what the cost will be to verify it,” he said.

Steven Brown from the RI chapter of the ACLU testifying in support of H6174
Steven Brown from the RI chapter of the ACLU testifying in support of H6174

Currently, H6174 is subject to amendment, but one that has caused some controversy is whether or not undocumented immigrants applying for a driver’s license would be required to submit to a national criminal background check. A major concern is whether or not such information would make its way to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“If you do have a national criminal record check, innocent people will be fearful, and understandably so,” said Steven Brown of the Rhode Island ACLU. Brown mentioned that the state Senate version of this bill has an explicit confidentiality provision that prevents the sharing of illegal immigrant’s information without issuing a subpoena.

“I don’t believe that particular provision is in this bill, and we would encourage that it be added,” he said. “We would encourage the committee, in considering this bill, to reject that option, because of its consequences.”

Study shows carbon tax would bring 2,000-4,000 jobs to RI


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Graphic courtesy of EnergizeRI
Graphic courtesy of EnergizeRI

A new study says a carbon tax in the state would create between 2,000 and 4,000 jobs, as well as create up to $900 million in state revenue by 2040. Scott Nystrom, a senior economic associate and project manager for Regional Economic Models, Inc. presented the study’s findings at Brown University.

Sponsored by the Energize Rhode Island Coalition, REMI’s study examined the possible benefits and consequences of instituting such a tax in the state.

Introduced this year, the Carbon Pricing Act has been tabled for the session but will be resubmitted next year. The bill, if passed, would be the first of its kind in the United States, setting an environmental standard for the rest of the country. More information can be found here.

Energize Rhode Island is currently promoting the Clean Energy Investment and Carbon Pricing Act, which would impose a carbon price (or tax) on all fossil fuels at the first point of sale within the state. The price would be $15 per ton of carbon dioxide for the first year the act is in effect, and raise at a rate of $5 per year.

The Carbon Pricing Act has two main goals – to provide a disincentive for using fossil fuel revenue to compensate for the cost of moving toward green energy. The price would be returned to Rhode Island’s economy in four different ways: a dividend check to households, a dividend to employers based on their share of state employment, a fund for energy efficiency costs, and administrative overhead.

According to REMI’s analysis, Rhode Island would receive positive benefits from implementing a carbon price.

“You actually have more jobs in Rhode Island that you would have otherwise with this policy,” Nystrom said during his presentation. Although the impact is relatively small, only around 1 percent of the jobs in the state, that’s still 2,000 to 4,000 jobs that were not there before. The Coalition says 1,000 of these jobs would be created within the first two years of the price’s introduction.

Total gross state product would rise as well, with the construction industry gaining roughly $86 million. The only industry that takes a serious hit due to the price is chemical manufacturing, which would lose $16 million. Real personal income would also increase between $80 and $100 million dollars during that time.

Nystrom also explained that instituting a carbon price could result in a population increase.

“Because the labor market is stronger, it draws more people to the state to an extent,” he said. “They move into the state as a consequence of the labor market, they buy a house, they settle down, and they increase the state’s population.”

With all of the new jobs and people living in Rhode Island, state revenues would be on the rise as well, earning between $200 and $900 million through the 2030s.

For all these benefits, cost of living would only increase minimally.

“Even though this does increase the cost of energy for states, It’s about a half a percent,” Nystrom said. “This means you have three months of extra inflection between now and 2040 than you would have otherwise.”

Carbon emissions were not the main focus of the study, but Nystrom did add that they would decrease over the course of a few years, and then stabilize.

“Emissions are purely a byproduct,” he said. “This is a result of the model.”

Homeless shelter standards legislation would reduce discrimination


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Advocates for the homeless say a Providence shelter discriminates against clients based on their sexual orientation. This, and other complaints, inspired the Rhode Island Homeless Advocacy Project to work with legislators on standards for homeless shelters in Rhode Island.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Betty Crowley of Central Falls, will be heard by a Senate subcommittee today after the full Senate commences. A House version is sponsored by a wide range of Democrats, from Rep. Aaron Regunberg, a rookie and one of the more progressive legislators, to Doc Corvese, a veteran Democrat but also one of the most conservative members of the General Assembly.

The idea for the legislation was conceived in large part by the Rhode Island Homeless Advocacy Project (RIHAP), headed by Barbara Kalil, Bill Chamberlain, and John Freitas.

Photo courtesy of morguefile.com
Photo courtesy of morguefile.com

“What we’re trying to accomplish is to set standards for anyone who is trying to shelter the homeless,” Freitas said. “As an advocacy group, we have to deal time and time again with people who have been denied shelter for arbitrary reasons.”

Among those reasons, they said, were girls wearing too much makeup, an unwed pregnant woman and sexual orientation. 

The bill was inspired, in part, by the conditions at the Safe Haven shelter in Pawtucket, which was run by the Urban League and forced to close during the summer of 2014.

But RIHAP has also received many complaints about the Providence Rescue Mission at 627 Cranston Street. Freitas said he has seen a number of these violations themselves – including forcing residents to attend a church service which talks about the evils of homosexuality.

“I was talking to a gay resident while I was staying there, and the staff questioned my manhood,” he said. “When we were in line to shower, they separated us. I don’t deny anybody the right to their beliefs, but I don’t think shelters should be dependent on me falling in line with those beliefs. Shelters should be just that, a sanctuary.”

RIHAP also received reports that gay individuals have been discouraged from going there. And when they are do, said RIHAP members, they are purposefully made to feel uncomfortable, and are identified as gay to both the staff and residents.

They have been told the staff believes it is their religious right to turn people away because it is not publicly funded.

“They don’t answer to anybody, so they can get away with it,” Chamberlain said.

Jim Ryczek, executive director for the Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless, said that although they have received the same complaints, the Rescue Mission has not broken the law.

“Since they are not a member agency, they are free to operate their program as they see fit, as long as it doesn’t violate state law,” he said.

Sometimes, RIHAP members said, the discrimination is simply personal. “In some cases, it’s just a matter of a staff member doesn’t like you, so you’re gone. And there’s no accountability,” Freitas said.

Chamberlain said when such abuses are brought to the state, the response was that they did not want to withhold funding from the agencies. There were many times, though, when a grievance was brought forward and it did not receive a proper procedure.

“If you were to make out a grievance against a shelter you were staying in, it could potentially go into the circular file,” Kalil said. “Nobody is really watching anybody to make sure it’s getting heard. Not only does it not get heard, but they’re going to make it all nice, and nobody gives any timeline to when things will get fixed.”

Kalil added that they have also heard incidences of a shelter telling a homeless person they are barred, when in fact they are not. “We need to make sure their rights are respected,” she said.

The bill says “all homeless persons have the right to homeless shelter services regardless of political or religious beliefs, immigration status, former geographic location of residence, ethno-cultural background, (dis)ability, gender identity, criminal background, and/or sexual orientation.”

The bill also outlines that homeless individuals should not be expected to pay a fee to stay in a shelter and nutritious food should be provided and that shelters should provide residents an atmosphere of dignity, and that staff should accept gender identity as defined by the individual, among others.

These guidelines would be enforced by a committee formed by the Housing Resources Commission (HRC), which would include one homeless or formerly homeless person, as well as one resident or former resident of a domestic violence shelter. The committee would be responsible for several tasks, all of which would address the concerns outlined in the bill, such as resident rights and responsibilities, and organizational standards for the shelter itself. The HRC would be required to enforce and implement any of the approved regulations drafted by the committee.

The bill would also impose baseline standards for homeless shelters in Rhode Island. An External Review Committee would conduct four onsite inspections of all shelters in Rhode Island per year. Only one of these inspections would be scheduled two weeks before their arrival, the other three would remain unannounced. Penalties for violating any of these standards would be monetary; between 2 percent and 10 percent of their average monthly expenses, based on the severity of the infraction, and the agency’s history.

Concerns about the legislation include aversion to new regulations, as well as aversions to potential new costs, Ryczek said.

“The members are rightly bringing up that if there are increased costs, where is that coming from? We will advocate with state and federal governments and say that if we need to do this, you need to provide,” he said.

H5242 will be heard in the Senate Committee on Housing and Municipal Government meeting on Wednesday, April 1, at 4:30 pm. Updates to follow.

A cleaner Rhode Island through carbon pricing


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Graphic courtesy of the Rhode Island Carbon Pricing Coalition
Graphic courtesy of the Rhode Island Carbon Pricing Coalition

The Carbon Pricing and Clean Energy Investment Act bill before the General Assembly has two goals. The first is to create a tax on fossil fuels – coal, oil, natural gas, petroleum – during their first point of entry within the state, which would be $15 per ton of carbon dioxide that would be released by the burning fuel.

The second goal is to use the money collected from the tax to set up the Clean Energy Fund. Money from the fund would be used to coordinate and invest in development research and commercialization of different green practices, including energy storage, wind and solar energy, and “other projects that are deemed to be potentially revolutionary breakthroughs in clean energy technology,” as stated by the bill.

Other uses for the Clean Energy Fund would be paying for the administrative costs associated with collecting the tax, funding programs to assist in the installation of clean energy technology, contributing to a green bank in the state, or investing in public transportation. The fund will also provide dividends to households and businesses for the first two months of 2016, in order to avoid financial harm to them because of the carbon price.

Goldstein-Rose stated that the bill presents a unique opportunity for Rhode Island, because it will make the state one of the frontrunners in addressing climate change.

“Rhode Island can be the first state to pass a carbon pricing bill, catalyzing momentum for other states and national legislation to follow – essentially doing what we did for gay marriage, for clean energy,” he said. “We can also make our state a center for clean energy development and sustainable towns, which we’re already starting to do by being the first state to build an offshore wind farm, and which we can go farther with by passing a carbon pricing bill.”

The bill is being sponsored by Rep. Dan McKiernan and Sen. Walter Felag,. Felag said the bill will be heard in Senate Finance at the end of April.

The information session to be held on Saturday is hosted by the Rhode Island Carbon Pricing and Green Jobs Coalition, which is a group dedicated to making Rhode Island a national leader in reducing carbon pollution, as well as strengthening the local economy. It will take place at 1 pm in room 106 of the Urban Environmental Laboratory at 135 Angell Street in Providence.


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387