As the end-of-year deadline approaches for municipalities across New York State to decide on how to implement marijuana legalization, there is heated debate in town halls about what to do and also many unknowns concerning the new and burgeoning cannabis industry. According to the new legalization law, towns can either opt-out of allowing retail dispensaries and consumption sites or by taking no action, passively accept allowing these businesses. In some cases, local officials are so sure about allowing cannabis that they say the public discussion isn’t even needed. But elsewhere, there is considerable debate about issues such as tax revenue, legal flexibility, and community impact, as is to be expected from such a sweeping legal change.
Some localities are taking the route of a passive referendum, in which a local law is introduced and then brought to a municipality-wide vote for residents to decide. To get many points of view, officials are calling in educational speakers to share information and experiences, including representatives from the cannabis industry and law enforcement. In the Hudson Valley town of Rhinebeck, residents then voted to opt-out. In Saugerties, another idea has surfaced: to passively opt into allowing cannabis stores and lounges, while at the same time implementing zoning laws to limit where businesses can operate—such as away from schools, churches, and residential areas. Municipalities can also choose a hybrid approach, such as allowing dispensaries but banning consumption sites.
What happens across New York is being closely watched by other states that are contemplating legalization, which invariably includes the opt-out provision to give local communities more control. While opinion polls routinely find that a majority of Americans favor legalization, they prefer not to have pot stores nearby: an overwhelming majority of towns eventually decide to opt-out, even in such early legal states as Oregon, Washington, and Colorada, as well as in California, the largest cannabis market. The reasons most often cited for barring pot commerce include uncertainty about the impact on young people and concerns about driving while drugged.