New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s recent budget proposal stirred controversy when it included a provision that would have allowed law enforcement officers to compel drivers to take a drug test based on the claim of smelling marijuana. The proposed change in policy, part of the state’s latest budget talks, encountered swift resistance from several quarters, including cannabis reform advocates, lawmakers, and even those within Hochul’s appointed leadership team.
The plan, which would have amended the Marihuana Regulation and Tax Act (MRTA), sought to empower officers to use the scent of marijuana as probable cause for a drug test. Under the current law, however, the odor of marijuana alone cannot be used as grounds to stop a driver or to search a vehicle. This prohibition was introduced with the intent to protect legal cannabis consumers and prevent racial profiling and other forms of discrimination often linked to marijuana enforcement.
Governor Hochul’s proposal faced immediate pushback from various groups, with some critics arguing that it would essentially undo the progress New York has made in decriminalising marijuana. The state has been a pioneer in cannabis reform, but this move was seen as a potential setback by many.
Felicia A.B. Reid, who serves as the acting executive director of the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM), which was established under the state’s cannabis legalization law, voiced strong opposition to the proposal. She explained that using the smell of marijuana as an indicator for probable cause would undermine the foundational principles of cannabis decriminalisation. In an interview with Spectrum News 1, Reid expressed that the amendment “is not going to work for New York and it’s not going to work for cannabis.”
The Backlash Grows
Lawmakers across the state also quickly took issue with the proposal. One of the most vocal opponents was Assembly Majority Leader Crystal Peoples-Stokes, a leading figure in cannabis reform within the state legislature. She made it clear that she would not support the change, arguing that it would have harmful implications for communities of colour who have long been disproportionately impacted by marijuana enforcement.
Peoples-Stokes, who has championed marijuana decriminalisation efforts for years, stressed that the provision could lead to unfair targeting and racial profiling. Her stance echoed broader concerns that police could use the smell of marijuana as a pretext for pulling over drivers, even though the substance is now legally available in the state for recreational use by adults over 21.
The provision also ignited concern among civil rights advocates, who warned that it would reintroduce tactics reminiscent of the so-called “broken windows” policing strategy. This approach, widely criticized for its over-policing of minor infractions, disproportionately affected minority communities and led to increased tensions between police and the public.
Why the Proposal Was a Step Backwards
New York’s MRTA was hailed as a landmark law when it was passed in 2021. The law set out to create a legal market for marijuana, provide for the expungement of past marijuana convictions, and ensure that the benefits of legalization were distributed equitably across communities. Legalising cannabis was seen as a crucial step in addressing historical injustices related to marijuana arrests, especially in communities of colour.
For many supporters of the MRTA, Governor Hochul’s proposal to allow police to use marijuana odor as probable cause felt like a rollback of these hard-won protections. Critics argue that this move could set a dangerous precedent for future marijuana-related legislation, particularly if it signals a return to the old ways of policing cannabis consumption.
Reid’s concerns echoed this sentiment. She argued that allowing police to use marijuana odor to justify drug tests would be an unjust expansion of police powers, particularly in a state that has prided itself on progressive cannabis policy. Moreover, such a shift would complicate the very essence of New York’s cannabis reform agenda, which was designed to promote fairness, equity, and transparency.
A Win for Cannabis Reform Advocates
The backlash led by lawmakers like Peoples-Stokes, along with opposition from cannabis reform leaders, ultimately pressured Governor Hochul to reconsider the controversial provision. As a result, it was removed from the final version of the state budget, marking a significant victory for cannabis reform advocates who had been vocal in their opposition to the proposal.
This development is being seen as a crucial win for cannabis advocates who feared that the provision could set a dangerous precedent for other states considering marijuana legalization. It also highlights the ongoing tension between those who view marijuana enforcement as a public safety issue and those who believe that such policies can undermine the progress made toward ending the war on drugs.
In the end, the removal of the provision is being celebrated as a step in the right direction, ensuring that New York’s cannabis laws remain consistent with the values of decriminalisation and social equity.
