Sean C. Morgan
The Sweet Home City Council last week approved two ballot measures that will allow voters to determine whether the production and sale of marijuana should be legal in Sweet Home.
A year ago, the council ended an ongoing debate about how it would address the legalization of marijuana by following a procedure created by the state government. It passed two ordinances, one prohibiting the sale of medical marijuana and the other prohibiting the production of any marijuana and the sale of recreational marijuana.
The city is required by the state to put both ordinances before Sweet Home voters on Nov. 8.
City Attorney Robert Snyder presented the two ballot measures to the council during its regular meeting on July 26.
The first asks, “Shall City of Sweet Home prohibit certain medical marijuana dispensaries in City of Sweet Home?’
The second asks, “Shall City of Sweet Home prohibit registered marijuana processing sites and licensed marijuana producers, processors, wholesalers and retailers?”
The council voted 7-0 to approve the second question.
The council voted 5-2 to approve the first for the ballot. Voting yes were councilors James Goble, Ryan Underwood, Greg Mahler, Dave Trask and Jeff Goodwin. Mayor Jim Gourley and Diane Gerson voted no over an objection to the language.
Theresa Brown, a resident of the Sweet Home area, voiced concerns about the use of the words “certain medical marijuana dispensaries” in the first question.
She suggested using the words “new medical marijuana dispensaries,” reflecting the fact that Sweet Home already has one medical marijuana dispensary.
The language comes directly from the League of Oregon Cities, Snyder said, and he believes it is meant to reflect the fact that a dispensary is already here and won’t be prohibited if the voters turn down the measure.
“Certain” refers to potential new dispensaries, he said.
Brown said this could confuse voters, who might think their vote will lead to some dispensaries being allowed while not others. She suggested the use of the term “new.”
Using the term “new” is good, Snyder said. The council could further elaborate in the explanation that appears with the question that some dispensaries have been “grandfathered.”
Lisa Gourley, a candidate for the council, said she thinks the term “certain” is deliberately vague and that “‘new’ is flat honest.”
Councilors didn’t agree.
“This does not confuse me at all,” said Councilor Dave Trask.
“People will talk about it,” said Councilor Jeff Goodwin. “This has been and will be a contested civic issue.”
Brown told The New Era following the meeting that she will challenge the wording.
“I will challenge (the ballot title) because it is important people understand from the title exactly what the measure means,” she said.
In other business, the council:
– Approved a public address permit for the Downtown Lounge for 8 p.m. to 12 a.m. Thursday through Saturday to allow a live band to play outside.
– Approved an intergovernmental agreement with Linn County to continue the Peer Court program.