GLASTONBURY — The Glastonbury Town Council voted to ban all cannabis establishments following a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Tuesday night, council members, residents and local activists raised alarms about the potential for cannabis establishments to pose a risk to the health and well-being of youth and pointed to the availability of cannabis in nearby towns as a reason Glastonbury could do without.
“At the heart of this is a values conflict,” Councilor Deborah Carroll said at Tuesday’s meeting. “Tax revenue versus the mental and physical and well-being of our youth.”
The measure to ban establishments, including production facilities, dispensaries and micro-cultivators, passed with just one vote dissenting, from Republican Councilor Whit Osgood.
“I supported state legalization of marijuana because I felt it would be much better for the state to regulate marijuana than to have drug cartels and drug dealers handle it,” Osgood said. “With that logic, I feel it would be inconsistent that the stores should be in Newington but not Glastonbury.”
There was a moratorium on cannabis establishments in Glastonbury from September 1, 2021, through March 1, 2023. An action item on January 24 extended the moratorium until June 1. In a 5-1 vote, the town Planning and Zoning Commission recommended a ban on cannabis establishments.
To the north, East Hartford and Manchester allow cannabis establishments, but Hebron and Marlborough to the east have moratoriums.
In the meeting materials, Glastonbury’s Planning and Zoning Commission considered the actions of similar towns such as Avon, Simsbury, West Hartford, Manchester and Wethersfield. Of those towns, only Avon instituted a ban. Simsbury currently has a moratorium.
Ahead of Tuesday’s meeting, police Chief Marshall Porter contacted police agencies from Connecticut towns that had dispensaries or cultivation facilities to ask if they had any problems.
Of the 16 towns, all but three had no issues. The three that did reported odor. In Portland, there was one instance of an employee selling the product illegally.
The town’s decision to ban the establishments means Glastonbury will forgo tax benefits of retail establishments. There is a 3.5 percent municipal tax imposed on cannabis that can be used for streetscape improvements, educational programming, support for those released from prison and mental health services.
Among the speakers at the hearing Tuesday were two student members of the Glastonbury Community Action Partnership’s youth advisory council who are opposed to cannabis establishments in town.
“Many community youth members currently use marijuana even without it being legally accessible,” said Alexa Wolf, of Glastonbury. “If vendors were to open in town, it would increase accessibility even more for minors.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that frequent and long-lasting cannabis use can cause unpleasant feelings, anxiety and depression. A report from the University of Washington showed that in lower doses cannabis use can help anxiety but larger doses can exacerbate it.
Councilor Jennifer Wang voted in support of the ban at Tuesday’s meeting but in an interview with Hearst Connecticut Media Group said she had not fully made up her mind until after public comment.
“I was pretty concerned about some rumblings of like fears and stereotypes that echo from the era of criminalization,” Wang said. “We have a long history of racial injustice. It’s just a context that we need to be aware of.”
Wang feels that the discussion leading to the recommendation to ban the establishments in Planning and Zoning Commission lacked the nuance required for a drug with as much history as cannabis.
“I was just surprised by how short that conversation was,” Wong said. “There weren’t really any questions. It was like, ‘We’re proposing a prohibition.’ Why aren’t we looking at other options?”
Ultimately, Wang said, comments from youth advocates and mental health groups led her to support a ban in town because of how having an establishment in town would run “contrary to prevention efforts.”
“I think there’s just like this fine line between destigmatization, obviously decriminalization, but also we don’t want to necessarily underplay the risks while destigmatizing,” Wang said.
The decision could be reversed in the future if town council approved a text amendment.
H/T: www.ctinsider.com
