Cannabis Legislation Goes Up In Smoke

A long Committee of the Whole meeting shows no consensus on allowing cannabis dispensaries in town

Last night, Troy City Council met as a Committee of the Whole to discuss two pending ordinances that, if passed, would separately allow one medicinal and one recreational cannabis dispensary in the city’s B-4, Highway Business District.

The meeting was called as there was confusion that the ordinances for deliberation by the City’s Law Director did not fully implement the wishes of the Community and Economic Development Committee that had previously deliberated the issue.

In speaking on the two ordinances, Council Member Lynne Snee, who is also a member of the Community and Economic Development Committee, stated that it was not her intention to see provisions that would allow both a medicinal and recreational cannabis dispensary; her wish was to see allowances made for only one dispensary.

As the meeting progressed, City Council members expressed very divergent views; Council Members Schilling and Whidden stated that the Issue 2 vote showed that was some community support for a dispensary, and they were willing to approve at least one of the measures on offer. Council Members Twiss and Pierce simply wanted to go along with the Planning Commission’s rushed recommendation. Council Members Marshall and Westfall both were uneasy with allowing dispensaries, but showed an understanding that public sentiment on the topic will continue to evolve.

As the entire council continued to grapple with the issue, Council Member Todd Severt, broke the logjam by saying he could not support either ordinance. His reasoning wasn’t so much based on the morality of the issue, bur rather on his judgement that there are legal questions that make cannabis dispensaries a hard sell on the local level.

First, cannabis is still illegal on a federal level, and that causes any dispensary that might operate to not be able to access traditional banking methods and may have large amounts of cash on hand. His concern was that any cannabis business operating in town could be a setting duck for robbery.

Second, Mr. Severt argued that what voters approved was not a constitutional amendment, but was a voter initiated statute that could be amended by the State Legislature. When the new state legislature convenes after the first of the year, odds are better than half that the law approved by the voters at the ballot box will be changed and any new state laws that come down in the future might be conflict with what the city might put forward. In Mr. Severt’s judgement, it made more sense to see what the General Assembly might do to cannabis law and then revisit the issue on a local level in 2026 or 2027.

In the end, there was no consensus to move forward with the two ordinances that are headed for a second reading. Both pieces of legislation, will most likely be “postponed indefinitely”; which is a kinder and gentler way of killing a piece of legislation, rather than having it face a defeating vote. In its place, a new ordinance will be drafted supporting the current recommendation of the City’s Planning Commission of banning cannabis cultivators, processors and dispensaries everywhere in the community.

While the decision may disappoint some and be met with approval by others, City Council should be universally applauded for the work that they did on this issue. This council took the time to deliberate this issue and heard public comment from many interested parties. They took a complex and potentially divisive issue and came up with a decision that could be reasonably be explained and accepted. This council took a more reasoned, open and transparent approach than what was offered by the city administration; which was to push a measure through with limited public comment and very little discussion among council.

In the end, the Council’s decision wasn’t so much as a “no”, but more of a “not yet”. The dust still needs to settle on recreational cannabis and there are many factors, both on the state and federal level, that will impact what future regulations on cannabis will be moving forward.

Individuals wanting to watch the entire committee meeting can do so by clicking here.

What Do You Think?

How do you feel about this decision? In your opinion, was this a “no” or a “not yet”? Our paid subscribers are more than welcome to leave their ideas and insights in the comment section. If you want to write a full opinion piece, without the limits of word counts or paywalls, this publication has a policy of publishing all submissions. Just send your ideas and insights to pinnaclestrategiesltd@gmail.com

Check out our New YouTube Channel!

Our goal with the Civic Capacity YouTube Channel is to be a centralized location where residents can watch videos of local government meetings in action and also provide comments and insights. You can check out the channel here!

A Unique Way to Support This Work

Our readers and subscribers have been asking for a new way to support the work being done here at Civic Capacity! Some of our readers do not like the idea of having to sign up for another subscription service. Some of our subscribers occasionally want to give more support through a one-time transaction.

Civic Capacity is partnering with “Buy Me A Coffee” to give our readers, subscribers and friends an opportunity to give one-time support to Civic Capacity. Personally, I don’t like coffee, but I will never turn down a nice iced tea. If you feel compelled to support this effort, just click the button below.

Thanks for reading today’s Civic Capacity Newsletter! Please feel free to share this information with your friends and neighbors.

Also, please consider subscribing to our work. If you are a free subscriber, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. For less than $1 a week, you can get timely and conversational updates about the decisions that are impacting you and your community!