Skip to content

New Mexico Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth on 2021 Legislative Session & Cannabis Legalization | 1.24.21

We kick off season 2 of “Growing Forward” where we left off with season 1: the 2021 Legislative Session. The Legislature convened on Tuesday, January 19th to kick off the 60-day session, which will be unlike any of us we have ever experienced before. Because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, lawmakers will do their work mostly remotely and the public is not allowed into the Roundhouse at all this year. There is still a lot of uncertainty about just how the peoples’ work will get done over the next two months, but one thing we know is that legalizing recreational cannabis will be debated and discussed. We wanted to get a better idea of how supporters plan to attack the issue this session, so hosts Andy Lyman and Megan Kamerick sat down on zoom with Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth (D). If you want to see the interview, you can also watch on Youtube. And, you can read more about some of the legislation, as we know it right now, in Andy’s latest report for the New Mexico Political Report

Episode Music:

Christian Bjoerklund – “Hallon”

Poddington Bear – “Good Times”

Growing Forward Logo Created By:

Katherine Conley 

*******

“Growing Forward” is a collaboration between New Mexico Political Report and New Mexico PBS.

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Andy Lyman: Hello, everyone. I’m Andy Lyman, Reporter with New Mexico Political Report. Along with me is Megan Kamerick, a correspondent with New Mexico PBS and an on-air host at KUNM. We’re both co-hosts of Growing Forward, a collaborative podcast between New Mexico Political Report and New Mexico PBS and we take a look at cannabis in New Mexico. If you’re watching us live on Facebook Live right now, welcome. This will also be our first episode of season two, so if you’re listening, welcome and thanks for listening. For those of you watching us live today, please feel free to drop any questions you might have in the comments and we’ll see if we can get them answered for you. But today, Megan and I are joined by Senator, I’m sorry, Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth. Senator, thanks for joining us today.

Senator Peter Wirth: Happy to be here.

Andy Lyman: So, Senator, you and I talked last week about how the Senate may be facing more than one cannabis legalization bill and each one may have some minor differences, but of course those differences may be, sort of, hard lines for these sponsors. But, before we get into how the Senate plans to tackle those differences, can you talk generally about the process of compromise in the legislature, specifically the Senate.

Senator Peter Wirth: Sure. I’m happy to and it’s a discussion I’ve been having with the sponsors of the various cannabis bills that are going to be coming. I don’t think we’ve had any introduced yet, but there’s been a lot of work done getting ready for the session and certainly following this historic election, the landscape in the Senate changed with respect to cannabis and our ability to move a recreational cannabis proposal forward. So, that of course is contingent upon us getting through all the details and seeking compromise amongst the various proposals. And the good news is that we’ve been having those conversations already. Everyone understands that, you know, the way we lose this is if we end up with someone getting totally locked into their specific provision and then kind of having this all collide at the very end of the session. So, it is… I’ve sent the signal that I want folks to be talking early on and we’ll continue to do that and at the right time, when we see, kind of, how it looks… certainly in my role as the Majority Leader in the Senate, we can put everyone into a room. It’ll be a Zoom room, of course. And, I can leave them in there until they figure it out. So, we’re gonna push really hard to make this happen.

Andy Lyman:  And so, like you mentioned, we don’t have any bills to look at right now, but I’ve spoken to some of the lawmakers who say they plan to sponsor these bills. Can you share with us a little bit of what you’re maybe looking for, to sort of, those hardline things that have to be in a proposal, either that you’re specifically looking for, or the caucus as a whole. What are some of those issues that kind of need to be in these proposals?

Senator Peter Wirth: Well, one of the big issues that’s kind of been really promoted by the Drug Policy group is the whole issue of criminal justice and impacts on various communities and that’s something that, you know, over the discussion with various sponsors, that have been more focused on the business elements of it, the medical component, those kind of things, we’ve made it very clear that whatever bill passes is going to need to address those fundamental underlying issues. And so, I’m feeling confident, just based on my conversations that that is being, that those elements are being incorporated and we’ll see exactly what it looks like. But, I just think that, you know, for example, medical producers who have obviously had a niche and are used to things the way that they are, you know, this is a… there’s a whole string of issues they’re focused on. And we just want to make sure that those, the underlying justice, social justice issues don’t get lost. So, I think that will certainly be something that needs to be in the final bill. Another piece that I think is very important is that we don’t do damage or harm to the medical cannabis program. Again, it’s, you know, I was in the legislature in 2007 when this passed and our current Governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, was the Health Secretary and I just think that it’s, it’s a program that really, you know, has been a model for how it’s been rolled out, how it’s worked and we want to make sure that, you know, it stays intact and is still a functioning program. So, that’ll be another a big issue and then really the details that you get into are licenses and plant counts and obviously issues that current providers, again medical providers, get concerned about. And there’s the big boys and the smaller groups and those are all the things that need to get worked out. I’m hopeful, you know, one thing you hear is that there’s… this is our drop-dead point and this is where we can’t go any farther, you know. Again, as a lawyer who does a lot of mediation in my legal practice, you hear that a lot and of course, that’s part of negotiating. At the end of the day, though, we really need to get this done, so I’m hopeful that we can shape it and make it work.

Megan Kamerick: So, can I just jump in. There was a really big push last year. It did not succeed. What are you taking away from that, in terms of why that didn’t pass and what needs to be different this year to get a bill passed.

Senator Peter Wirth: Yeah, Megan, it’s a good question. Of course, it was a 30-day session which is much harder to pass anything and we ended up where we don’t want to be this session. We ended up with a bill, basically, that was later in the session in Senate Judiciary and instead of the work being done on the front end, going into that committee, basically the bill was presented and then, you know, the Chair of Senate Judiciary, Senator Cervantes, who has concerns about legalization, basically had a bill that wasn’t ready. And so, I think it’s a lesson for how not to do it. We need to make sure that when the legislation does get to the Senate Judiciary, you know, the work has been done by the advocates, by the legislators. Another thing I’ll say about the bill last year, of course, it was done by the Governor’s Task Force and it didn’t have as much legislative involvement. This year, I know the legislators have been working very hard, kind of, in shaping and crafting these bills and that’s the type of, kind of, from the ground-up versus the top-down approach that I think is needed for legislation of this kind. So, again, we just can’t get it into a final committee in a place where it’s not really ready to go.

Andy Lyman: So, the other sort of thing that seems to be different this year is, of course, every year that these sort of proposals come up, there’s just straight out opponents that say, “We shouldn’t do this.” And, of course, this year we’ve got this added mix of people saying, “We should do it, but we should do it this specific way or that specific way.” We still have the opponents, I’m guessing, that are going to come out and say, “We shouldn’t do this.” What sort of measures can we take, or can the Senate or Legislature, as a whole, take to sort of get everyone on board. Obviously not everyone’s going to vote for this, but is there a way to convince these opponents that this is the right thing to do?

Senator Peter Wirth: Well, it’s a good question, Andy. And again, you learn in this game that, you know, the key is getting the right number of votes to advance it to the next committee and taking it one step at a time. And, really kind of seeing where the opposition is and having a constructive discussion about it, because, again, I do think that it’s important to listen and there’s legitimate concerns that are raised. What also has changed, I know you’ve reported on this, Arizona is now in this game. Obviously, Colorado is well into it and it just feels like it’s… There’s also an economic argument that I know the governor has really pushed, which makes more sense than ever given our need to diversify away from oil and gas and so you’ve, kind of, got a variety of different arguments and different reasons for supporting it. And then, there’s obviously reasons for not supporting it, so I’m hopeful that we can listen and, you know, we’ve had, over the last couple years, there has also been republican support for various proposals and that’s something I’m looking forward to as well, is to see whether or not there’s a way to get, to make this bipartisan. It is a bipartisan issue. It should not be partisan and lined up that way and so, again, those are going to be important discussions to have and I would just note finally that the new makeup of the Senate Judiciary Committee, both Senator Pirtle and Senator Moores have been involved in discussions about how to do this and kind of discussions we had two sessions ago about different options and so again, I think that it’s key to have them also at the table and trying to shape this in a way that can get that kind of bipartisan support.

Andy Lyman: You’re doing a great job of anticipating some of the questions…. I’m sorry, Megan, did you have another question?

Megan Kamerick: I was gonna jump in. You had said you want to protect the medical cannabis program. So, as we’ve talked about in the podcast, there’s… So, people know… there’s really no difference between medical cannabis and recreational cannabis, but it’s how it’s structured and regulated. So, do you have thoughts about how, what we need to do to ensure that we protect the medical cannabis program, so patients can get the supply they need, even if we totally legalize and make it recreational.

Senator Peter Wirth: Well, you’ve touched on one of the key underlying issues is supply and again other states that have legalized have run into huge problems with that, when all of a sudden, the recreational market dominates and there’s not the supply of medicine in the medical program. So, again, you know, I… you know, as the Leader, one of the challenges is, you know, when do you kind of jump into the weeds on a weeds, quote-unquote, on a bill like this. And so, again, I’m looking forward to, kind of, seeing the specifics of how it’s done and I’ve heard loud and clear, you know, from medical providers that I’ve met with, that they want to make sure that program doesn’t get rolled over by a recreational program. So, in terms of, Megan, of all the different things that need to be in place to prevent that type of rolling from happening, you know, I want to wait and see. I can’t give you, at this moment, exactly what these bills look like, how we’re going to do that, but I just think from an overall, kind of strategy standpoint, of getting something across the finish line, we can’t have a bill that has the whole medical cannabis industry opposing it. That’s a recipe for disaster. So, it’s got to be something that can work and maintain the medical program, which again, New Mexico has been really a leader in that.

Megan Kamerick: I know some of the concerns people have raised around equity, you touched on, I think you touched on… the criminal justice issues, expungement for past marijuana offenses, but there’s also this idea of who gets to benefit? And, in terms of, are we going to open up and have a lot of outside companies that come in and set up shop here? Will we have ways to allow local entrepreneurs to get more involved in this? But, especially people from communities that have borne the brunt of this plant being criminalized. And, I don’t know how much… we’ve talked about this in the podcast… like how and Andy has talked about this, in terms of the legislature, how much are we going to put in the bill in statute? How much is going to be worked out in rule-making? And, what is important to have in statute versus rule making?

Senator Peter Wirth: Yeah, you know… I think, and that’s a, it’s a great point, because you can, you can kill a bill by getting too in depth about some specifics that do really need to be worked out in rule-making. I will say, you know, it’s important to me to protect New Mexico small businesses and that is something that, you know, we don’t want, you know, huge out-of-state company producers to come in here and basically use their, the economy of scale that they have, to basically undercut all the New Mexico businesses that have, kind of, been developed around the medical program. So, that’s an issue, you know, we need to look at and that’s one of the challenges, for sure, because again, to the extent there’s a sense and a feeling that that’s the direction this would go, we’re going to end up with lots of New Mexico businesses opposed to the bill. And so, you know, I think there is a fine line that gets us through the challenges and the things we have to navigate on this piece of legislation. And so, really though, it’s going to take a huge effort by the sponsors, to work with those that are advocating for each particular version, to try and kind of, to come up with something that can address, you know, these key issues and do so in a way that that gets it down to the Floor, where I do think, if it gets to the Floor, it will pass.

Andy Lyman: Through all these conversations, obviously the big issue here, as we’re having these conversations, is that we don’t actually have bills to sort of examine and break down and get analysis on. But, earmarks seem to be another issue that people have sort of changed on and I wonder if you have any thoughts on the right way, just philosophically… should we earmark tax revenue from this? Should we just put it into the general fund and figure it out later?

Senator Peter Wirth: Yeah, it’s a great question, Andy, and it is… and you will see… and Senator Candelaria, who’s one of the key, will be one of the key sponsors of one of the Senate bills, I think, sits on the Senate Finance Committee and there really is a hesitation to earmark money instead of putting it in the general fund and then using the money out of the general fund, appropriating it for the appropriate programs. So, that’s a debate that needs to happen. Last year’s version, there was a lot of discussion about earmarks and specific earmarks I think it was felt were needed for certain votes to be able to get it across the line. You know, I’m feeling more confident about the vote count on the Senate Floor and so, you know, there are important pieces that I think can be addressed through some earmarks, but I’m cautious about just taking all the money and directing it in a certain direction. I do think that a balance can be found here, you know, that addresses, you know, some education issues and underlying treatment issues. I mean, these are all incredibly important things that we need to be doing and, you know, whether it’s a specific earmark that does it, or an appropriation that comes out of the general fund now that we have this additional revenue, once we get this passed I think those things need to happen. So, that’s not the issue, it’s just the mechanical way that we do it, earmarked versus into the general fund with an appropriation out.

Andy Lyman: So, you mentioned Senator Jacob Candelaria and I personally have had people sort of ask this question, that… and we saw the same thing with Speaker Egolf last year. Both of them have represented and, currently, Senator Candelaria represents a medical cannabis producer. Can you, I guess, we…. I know we have to get you out of here too… but, can you briefly just, sort of, address that sort of… it seems like a conundrum with our legislature on very many issues. But, of course I expect this to be raised again this year.

Senator Peter Wirth:  Yeah, so it is, it is a, conundrum is a good word. Again, we are citizen legislators and, again, have jobs outside of the legislature. As I mentioned, I’m a lawyer as well, do lots of mediation work and do represent clients as well. So, again Senator Candelaria, I think has addressed this and indicated that he does not feel that it is a conflict. It’s been fully disclosed and one of the, in our unique system of a citizen legislature, where legislators are not receiving a salary, you know, disclosure is a huge piece of potential conflict issue. So, I think that, you know, he’ll need to address that. I do think that that’s one of the things, as you move through the process, you have that discussion and have full disclosure, but at the end of the day, again, I just think, you know, he’s going to be steering one version of this. I know Senator Ivey-Soto, Senator Ortiz y Pino, Chairman Javier Martinez on the House side and there may be another House, could be up to five bills, I’ve heard about and who knows, there may be more. You know, this is the thing about a 60-day session, is that anyone can drop bills at any time and I just, it’s always interesting. And in an area like this, where there’s been so much work done, the advocates have all been working on their own specific version of this, there’s panic that goes out when something gets dropped that’s someone’s not been part of. And, I know that again, after you know 17 years of serving in the legislature and introducing bills myself, you know, sometimes that we’re in areas like this that are very challenging and contentious. But again, that’s… that… members have that right and can do that on behalf of constituents or for a policy reason, so you may see some more and that’s going to be the key, is kind of getting a, getting a sense of what’s there and for all your listeners, just in the State Senate, we’ll be back on February 1st on the Floor and at that time we will introduce a huge bucket of bills to catch up with all the bills that have come in since the pre-files. We did get through about 130 plus bills on opening day, which is kind of typical for a first week. We just had a very long day on Tuesday, but we’ll be back on the first and I think at that point, you know, you will see exactly what’s there and can analyze those and discuss them and certainly we welcome input, you know, during the process. During the committee hearings, there will be the ability to comment on these bills, but there’s going to be a lot of work going on, going on, and I’m really hopeful that this is a year that this happens.

Andy Lyman: We’ve just got maybe about a minute left. Megan, did you have a question you needed to squeeze in before we let the Senator go?

Megan Kamerick: No, I don’t think so. This might be again getting in the weeds (laughs), but we’ve seen that, in some states where it legalized, a robust black market rose up as well. And so, it seems to be a matter of finding the sweet spot in terms of how much you can tax to get the revenue that everybody wants to diversify our economy, but not make that happen. I don’t know if you have thoughts about addressing that, again, in the bills, or is this something that should be hashed out after the legislation has passed?

Senator Peter Wirth: No, I think this will be discussed, for sure. Again, it’s a key piece of the bill and Megan, you’re right, you know, if you tax too high, you just push everything in a different direction and so we’ve got to find the right number there. And again, we’ve got different estimates on the economic impact of legalization. I think Kelly O’Donnell, an economist, has said 600 to 800 million dollars, which if you had a tax in the 15 to 20% range, you know, you’re looking at 100, 150 million, perhaps. So, those are things that certainly the, you know, the Finance Committee will be looking at that as a key piece of this proposal and something that the Governor has really stressed, this is a diversification effort on top of everything else that’s important in this legislation. So, another one of those conundrums we’ve gotta navigate through to get to the sweet spot. And, you know again, I’m hopeful that this is the year to get this done and I just think the longer we wait, the less of an economic impact it’s going to have as all of our sister states around us and the country really moves in this direction at a pretty high speed.

Andy Lyman: So, I know we’ve got to let you hop off. You’ve got another busy week, for lawmakers this week. So, thank you, Senator Wirth, and taking the time to speak with us.

Senator Peter Wirth: Great, thanks for having me.

Andy Lyman and Megan Kamerick: Thank you.

Andy Lyman: Growing Forward is a collaboration between New Mexico Political Report and New Mexico PBS. I’m Andy Lyman for New Mexico Political Report.

Megan Kamerick: And, I’m Megan Kamerick with New Mexico PBS and KUNM.

Andy Lyman: You can find previous episodes by searching for Growing Forward wherever you get your podcasts or visit nmpbs.org and special thanks to our production team Kevin McDonald and Bryce Dix.