Share
A year after voting against the legislation that legalized recreational marijuana, State Sen. Dennis Bradley, D-Bridgeport, said he can already see how the economic advantages of large companies will shut out Black and Brown communities, under the current rules, from obtaining vending and growing licenses in Connecticut.
“Those with the deepest pockets who have been doing it in another state — who already understand the industry, who have already have relationships in terms of commerce and in terms of advertising — they are going to create such an uneven playing field that will make it impossible for the outcome that we want, for the economic prosperity in urban areas, which I’ll describe as minority communities.”
“I don’t see the current model that we have to be an effective model to make it easier for minority business owners to come in and be able to get these licenses. I just see it’s a way of creating an oligarchy of those who have those licenses to be able to strengthen those licenses, and have a stranglehold on the process,”
Bradley was one of four state senate Democrats who voted against the bill, with 19 voting in favor.
“We were in the minority in our own party in terms of voting against marijuana. And I think I was the only urban legislator that voted against it,” said Bradley, who is currently facing multiple felony charges of campaign fraud stemming from his 2018 run for office.
This spring the state will begin approving applications — chosen by a lottery for social equity and for open licenses — for a nine types of marijuana-related businesses. Beginning July 1, 2023, 60 to 75 percent of marijuana excise tax revenue will fund social equity efforts.
But Bradley said the way the legislation is written — which allows an individual or company to submit multiple applications for a license at $250 a piece — perpetuates the power of big business to control the marijuana industry.
“I don’t see the current model that we have to be an effective model to make it easier for minority business owners to come in and be able to get these licenses. I just see it’s a way of creating an oligarchy of those who have those licenses to be able to strengthen those licenses, and have a stranglehold on the process,” he said.
Bradley traced the issue back to the war on drugs and the heavy sentences given for drug dealing and possession of marijuana as well as the government being able to possess people’s assets under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization), which affected children of parents who were put in prison and stripped of their homes, cars and bank accounts.
“So how do you make amends for that? I don’t know. But I don’t believe that this piece of legislation is going to accomplish that. I respect and admire the attempt,” he said. “I think that no matter how you try to level the playing field, you’re just not going to be able to compete with the level of industry that already exists in terms of packaging and marketing products.”
Bradley said he believes that instead of earning money from marijuana, minority communities will be targeted and saturated with marijuana in the same way they were with tobacco, lottery and cigarettes, leading to abusive outcomes, including addiction.
“If you go in any urban part of America from sea to shining sea, whether you’re in Bridgeport, Connecticut, or Compton, California, and everybody in the middle, you see liquor stores in every single corner of our community, and you see the adverse effect that has on the community, right? Whether it’s domestic violence, or issues of thievery, larceny, or just simply, you know, an overall ineptitude, that happens by being addicted to a substance.”
“If you go in any urban part of America from sea to shining sea, whether you’re in Bridgeport, Connecticut, or Compton, California, and everybody in the middle, you see liquor stores in every single corner of our community, and you see the adverse effect that has on the community, right? Whether it’s domestic violence, or issues of thievery, larceny, or just simply, you know, an overall ineptitude, that happens by being addicted to a substance.”
Bradley said the lottery is similar. It was previously illegal and then the states took it over, advertising on billboards that players could win $50 or $100 million.
“We had our lottery commissioner refer specifically to scratch tickets — which is the number one generator of revenue in the state of Connecticut and every state that has a lottery scratch ticket — as ‘paper crack,’ making reference, obviously, to the crack epidemic that affected the African American community because it is so addictive and it’s so targeted, especially to the Black community,” he said.
Bradley said the promised money that was supposed to be added into the school budgets from the lottery never reached the affected communities.
“What’s the reality here? We are now in 2022, our public school systems, I think it’s uncontroverted, have gotten worse, not better.”
Bradley pointed to urban school districts in America which experience a lower high school graduation rate, and a overall lower performance rate – including high school students in Bridgeport who read at a fifth-grade level on standardized tests.
“We need to invest in what works, and what levels the playing field is education,” he said.
He said that, in particular, Bridgeport has received just $35 million for education — compared to Hartford’s $85 million and New Haven $118 million — a huge disparity.
Multi-tiered solutions
“We have to invest our dollars that we’re going to get from marijuana and force whoever’s in the legislature or in the executive office to invest in these programs that we know are going to make a difference,” Bradley said.
Secondly, he said, it’s important to build in strict regulations on the locations and numbers of marijuana dispensaries, especially in minority neighborhoods.
“We have to create red zones or party districts as to where you can get the access and not allow it to go the way of lottery and alcohol, tobacco — we can’t let that proliferation happen — if we do that, then we can hopefully create the safeguards necessary.”
Lastly, Bradley said that Connecticut should make available counseling and drug rehabilitation services for those in need, whether for marijuana, alcohol or gambling.
“Many clients I have now are addicted to substances – they have to wait four or five months before there’s a bed that opens for them to go to rehab — it’s just an abomination. People become suicidal and become stuck and they just feel like, hey what’s the point,” he said.
Beyond the economics
“I think I was the only urban legislator that voted against marijuana,” Bradley said. “And a lot of people said, well, it’s because my father is a pastor and I’m a Christian. People thought it was for religious reasons, but I did not vote for it purely on moralistic grounds.”
Bradley said he had worked hard to separate his religious beliefs from the economics and practicalities of the bill.
He said that designing the bill without safeguards was a danger for Black and Brown communities, as was the promise of Black millionaires.
“We say, well, they’ve gotten all of this money from the sale of marijuana, but then we don’t do the backend study — how much does that cost in police services, emergency response, DCF reports, substance abuse clinics, etc.?” he said. “When you actually sit down and do the numbers, it actually comes to a net loss for the state of Colorado from the sale of marijuana.”
“I don’t believe it’s going to create new Black millionaires. We had Black millionaires who became millionaires from selling marijuana and we put them in jail for double life sentences. I just don’t see how this industry is going to do it now,” he said.
Bradley said he was also frustrated that the Democrats, instead of being innovative, repeated the models of other states like Colorado that legalized marijuana, but did not research the downstream costs and effects.
“We say, well, they’ve gotten all of this money from the sale of marijuana, but then we don’t do the backend study — how much does that cost in police services, emergency response, DCF reports, substance abuse clinics, etc.?” he said. “When you actually sit down and do the numbers, it actually comes to a net loss for the state of Colorado from the sale of marijuana.”
The burden, Bradley said, falls on the taxpayers but not the companies with marijuana licenses.
“Instead of being innovative, we’re just repeating models that are broken models,” he said.
Bradley said instead he was interested in State Sen. John Fonfara’s idea of removing the state income tax as a way to attract businesses to Connecticut and build economic growth.
“We would be able to generate more revenues and it would create, actually, an incentive for businesses to leave the neighboring states of New York and Massachusetts and possibly, resettle in Connecticut,” Bradley said. “But instead of doing things like that —out-of-the-box thinking that’s nuanced and could actually generate actual businesses to come here that create vitality as opposed to destruction — we find an easy solution. We are following what New York and Massachusetts and Colorado are doing instead of being revolutionary in our thinking.”
Tara Chozet, spokeperson for the Connecticut Lottery Corporation responds:
“The Connecticut Lottery Corporation’s current President (“lottery commissioner”) has never said anything to substantiate the comments attributed to him in a recent article. These statements are as reckless as they are inaccurate. The Connecticut Lottery takes problem gambling very seriously, working hand-in-hand with the National Council on Problem Gambling, the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling and the CT Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services to ensure we are incorporating responsible gambling best-practices in our business and marketing operations.”
Bradley responded:
“I don’t remember exactly the commissioner who said that but they’re well aware that scratch-off lottery tickets are extremely addictive, and they’re well aware that the reason why they don’t want to allow those to be online games and scratch offs is because of the addictive quality that they had and they feel that [it would be] predatory to put those things online. It’s by far the most popular game and is by far the most addictive game, and it’s the reason why they’ve decided internally not to allow that game to become an online.”