“The feedback we’ve received to date has been around 50-50,” said city supervisor Kevin Johnson.
City council is now considering a measure to “refuse” to let in marijuana. Johnson says the real purpose of the legislation is to start a public debate before the state’s official default position, allowing the sale of jars and consumer businesses, automatically occurs in late December.
This is what happens if local municipalities do not take action.
Karen Lobracco, from Sweden, told the board that she liked the idea of new tax revenue coming to town, but wanted to learn more about the police.
“The police will have difficulties,” she said. “They definitely have procedures for intoxication and they struggle with that about cannabis. “
An important consideration for lawmakers is that a decision to “step back” and keep the industry out is a decision that community leaders can override. If the measure to exclude jar companies is passed, the board could change its mind in the future.
But under state law, once businesses are allowed in, either because a municipality decides to allow them or because it takes no action, a community has no option. to do a 180 later.
Johnson said he understands the logic, as entrepreneurs who wish to operate would likely make expensive commitments to start their business, which would be unfair to thwart a reversal.
“Once you’re in, you’re stuck,” he said.
For those not interested in sales, the main selling point is tax revenue, which retreating municipalities will not get, even though the sale and manufacture of marijuana will be statewide legal.
“Cannabis will be consumed and our citizens will use it,” Lobracco observed. “We should stay and use this income for the good of the city.”
With so many questions still unanswered and the deadline still more than three months away, Johnson says the city is in no rush to make a decision on this and could very well wait for whatever it can learn and wait from make a decision until the last minute in December.