Staff
During a work session held on June 2, city councilors decided they wanted to hear from Sweet Home voters about marijuana.
They’ll consider further how to restrict the time, manner and place for sale and use of marijuana in Sweet Home, and in November, they’re interested in hearing from Sweet Home residents in the form of an advisory vote.
Present at the work session were Greg Mahler, Mayor Jim Gourley, Bruce Hobbs and Jeff Goodwin. Absent were Ryan Underwood, Dave Trask and Marybeth Angulo. During the work session, the council could not make a decision but could discuss its options regarding potential marijuana regulation.
The meeting was the latest in a series following a proposal by Goodwin earlier this year to prohibit marijuana in Sweet Home. Recreational use of marijuana will be legal under state law beginning July 1. Residents will be allowed to grow marijuana plants and give marijuana to friends and family.
Retail licenses from the Oregon Liquor Control Commission will not be granted until January 2016 at the earliest, and voters have the ability to gather signatures for petitions and vote to prohibit retail establishments in the November 2016 election.
The city can regulate how and where marijuana is sold primarily through zoning regulations, according to information provided by City Attorney Robert Snyder and City Manager Craig Martin.
Several pieces of legislation could affect marijuana further, Martin said.
Legal challenges in other cities, such as Cave Junction, revolve around denying business licenses to medical marijuana dispensaries, Martin said, but he is concerned about justifying using such a process to prohibit the sale of marijuana.
Outside of questions surrounding the sale of marijuana, Goodwin is concerned about how it might be sold.
“I don’t want to see marijuana being sold at 11 at night,” he said. Among a number of ideas, he suggested distances of 1,000 feet from schools, 500 feet from a church or 250 feet from any residence.
He doesn’t want to see a retailer open up shop between two houses, or next door to a church, where children may be exposed to marijuana.
Snyder asked what would be the justification for using a distance from a residence. The city has zoning as a tool to decide where to allow different uses of land.
“There are residences in all zones, so you would be effectively banning it in all zones,” said City Planning Services Manager Laura LaRoque.
“My suggestion is use your zoning,” Martin said, setting the figure as a distance between the zone and the retailer.
“I find this a very frustrating discussion,” Goodwin said. “The sale of marijuana is illegal activity. The use of marijuana is still illegal activity.”
He referred to federal laws prohibiting the sale and use of marijuana.
It seems like no one wants to talk about the federal law, he said. “All we can do is not punish it.”
“If you want to try to restrict it more, that’s your guys’ prerogative,” Martin said, adding that council members need to understand where they might be in the spectrum of legal challenges.
Cities are trying different things all over the place, Goodwin said.
Snyder said another issue is the “supremacy argument” of federal over state government.
The relationship between the states and federal government is different from the relationship between cities and the state, he said. Going to state circuit court, cases will be decided on state issues and state law. If decided, it never gets to the federal level.
“I’m not sure that’s the end of the argument for us,” he said. “We’re not at the same level of separation.”
The cities and state don’t have separate sovereignty, Goodwin said, but the cities do have “home rule,” which is often litigated and a city may be allowed to pass ordinances despite state law.
Hobbs said he would like to see regulations that handle marijuana similar to how alcohol is handled. He is concerned that this could be a huge waste of time otherwise based on state law and what the state legislature may do.
He thinks combating marijuana use among children requires education, noting how ubiquitous tobacco once was. The number of tobacco users continues to dwindle, Hobbs noted.
“We’re already behind the curve on drug education, although overall drug use is coming down,” he said.
The council has time to find out what voters think the council should do, Goodwin said. He suggested seeking an advisory vote from local voters.
Mahler said he has already made up his mind, and he believes the council has lost sight of what’s important: businesses and jobs.
He said the council should have passed a moratorium on medical marijuana last year to allow the council more time to work out regulations. He doesn’t have a problem with medical marijuana, although he doesn’t believe anyone needs to smoke it.
“First one opened up, we had a circus act,” Mahler said. The dispensary put a mannequin out front. He called it “embarrassing,” especially as developers are trying to court businesses and investors into coming to Sweet Home.
He emphasized that he is “100 percent” against recreational marijuana, Mahler said, and he wants to see some serious regulations on dispensaries.
“It shouldn’t be in our town at all,” he said. “We should be focused on jobs and businesses, period.”
The council could be talking about marijuana for the next 25 years, he said. The council shouldn’t be making any decisions about marijuana. The voters should make that decision. If voters say they don’t want it, then the council should stop it. If they say they do want it, the council should let it go.
Gourley said he understood the consensus of the council was to seek an advisory vote, a vote that wouldn’t have a binding result but rather would poll voter opinions on the subject.
The council will continue the discussion at an upcoming meeting. The topic was not on the agenda scheduled for Tuesday, June 9.