Opinion articles provide independent perspectives on key community issues, separate from our newsroom reporting.

Editorials

Debate over cannabis shops in Pasco needed to end. The council made the right call | Opinion

The Pasco City Council has directed staff to draw up an ordinance allowing cannabis to be sold in certain zones within city limits.
The Pasco City Council has directed staff to draw up an ordinance allowing cannabis to be sold in certain zones within city limits. Tri-City Herald file

A majority of Pasco City Council members made the right call Monday night when they decided not to ask voters what they think about cannabis shops operating in the city.

Instead, Mayor Blanche Barajas, Mayor Pro Tem Craig Maloney and council members Zahra Roach and Joseph Campos made their own decisions based on months of public comments and council discussion.

They did their job.

The proposal to lift the city’s ban on retail cannabis already has been hotly debated, and taking it to the voters likely wouldn’t have settled the matter. Historically, voter turnout is pathetically low for local elections, so just how “advisory” would an advisory vote be, anyway?

Pasco residents were already asked their thoughts on the issue in a 2021 community survey and the results were a virtual tie, with 45% saying they would strongly or somewhat support marijuana sales within the city and 46% saying they wouldn’t.

So in a two-part move, the majority voted against using an advisory vote to gauge public opinion and then voted to have staff come up with an ordinance allowing cannabis products to be sold in commercial and industrial zones.

Their stance, no doubt, will frustrate a significant number of citizens who are adamantly opposed to the idea of allowing cannabis to be sold within city limits.

Retail cannabis has been legal in Washington state ever since Initiative 502 was approved by voters in 2012 — largely because of strong backing in the Puget Sound area.

Voters in Benton and Franklin counties overwhelmingly rejected the idea of legalizing marijuana. And while that sentiment still runs strong, times are changing.

Retail cannabis shops set up in Prosser, Finley and near West Richland before Benton County officials could ban them don’t appear to have caused the uptick in crime that many residents feared. And they are popular shops.

Still, cannabis is illegal at the federal level, which many find troubling.

But since Washington and Colorado became the first states to approve recreational use of marijuana by adults, other states have followed suit. Now, a total of 21 states in the U.S. have legalized cannabis.

In addition, in 2021 Washington State University launched its Center for Cannabis Policy, Research and Outreach, which focuses on getting more hard evidence about the risks and benefits of cannabis use. The center is studying everything from criminal justice issues to the drug’s medicinal and psychological effects. That cannabis is considered worthy of such study is a signal of changing attitudes about its use.

Citizens in favor of retail cannabis cite the monetary benefits, with estimates that allowing it to be sold in Pasco could bring in at least $200,000 a year in tax revenue to the city.

Those opposed worry about its negative health effects and the stigma that still surrounds it. Pasco officials have been working hard to revitalize the downtown area, and many citizens have been distressed about the possibility of placing a cannabis shop in an area that city leaders have been trying to make “family friendly.”

It’s a legitimate concern and one the city council should take seriously.

The Washington Liquor and Cannabis Board limits Franklin County, which includes Pasco, to four retail cannabis licenses based on its population. The ordinance being drafted will allow shops to be placed in commercial and industrial zones, including downtown.

Councilmen Pete Serrano, David Milne and Irving Brown Sr. supported the idea of an advisory vote on the controversial idea. Giving more people a chance to have their say on the matter is, on the surface, an appealing proposal.

But advisory votes often end up being a way for elected officials to defer making the hard and sometimes controversial decisions.

In this case, delaying a decision would only prolong the frustration on both sides. It was time to end the debate, and that’s what the majority did.

This story was originally published March 22, 2023 at 12:34 PM.

Get one year of unlimited digital access for $159.99
#ReadLocal

Only 44¢ per day

SUBSCRIBE NOW