By Plain Rhetoric

City’s words, actions don’t match up on pot dispensaries

Mar 20, 2018 | 5:00 AM

A WEEK OF RUMOURS, speculation, intrigue and drugs. Whoever thinks life in Kamloops is life in the slow lane has not been paying attention to the ever-unfolding story of cannabis retailers vs. the City of Kamloops.

To bring you up to speed; Kamloops business licence inspectors visited all but one of the dozen or so cannabis dispensary outlets last week. The purpose behind each visit was to deliver a notice that in all but one instance included a statement that said, “No business licence can be issued at this time. Would strongly suggest. Cease operation on or before March 31, 2018.”

Marvin Kwiatkowski, the City’s Development, Engineering & Sustainability Director, explained most of these inspection reports as “informational letters”.

Noting that, “Legal matters in regards to the cannabis dispensaries are discussed with Council In-Camera”, Mr. Kwiatkowski was unable to provide further details on the closed portion of the Feb. 27 meeting.

We do know though, with a couple of exceptions, that councillors have come to recognize the need and accept that the sale of cannabis has been and will continue to be part of the business fabric of the city.

Boogie The Bridge

Boogie The Bridge Event Information

Apr 19, 2024

One Man's Opinion

COLLINS: Sorry - did you say, 'Take your old guns to the post office?'

1h ago

SOUND OFF

SOUND OFF: Police confirm diversion of government-supplied drugs

21h ago

Of course, the ever-silent Councillor Dhaliwal has continued his practice of collecting taxpayers’ money but never saying a word, so I have no idea where he stands on this matter. However, at the February 27 council meeting, Councillor Sinclair set the tone, saying, “This council is not anti-cannabis. We want to welcome the cannabis retail industry to the business community.”

My sense of the numbers confirms Ms. Sinclair’s business assessment and suggests there are nearly 10,000 users in the area, generating combined monthly sales around the million-dollar mark.

At that same Feb. 27 meeting, Councillor Singh added, “We don’t intend to shut down all dispensaries.”

Mayor Christian, while noting their illegal status, went on to explain “It’s certainly not my goal or the goal of the rest of council to shut all these facilities down. However, there are facilities causing problems in their neighbourhood… and those [affected] citizens have rights as well. So we have to balance that piece as well.”

Despite these earlier assurances, the arrival of the city licensing team caused a stir and some stress for dispensary staff and customers.

There were also rumours floating around that store owners were being told refusal to voluntarily close by the end of the month could inhibit their chances for a business licence when it became legal. Others had heard that the city would only be issuing two licences once the enabling federal cannabis legislation was in place.

Councillor Lange did nothing to dispel rumours when she stated on Friday, “One (letter) explains that closing ahead of the change in law could be an advantage to dispensaries that plan to apply for a recreational cannabis store license.”

While it did not confirm retailer suspicions, it didn’t serve to allay their concerns that the city may hinder or delay the approval process for those not complying with the suggested March 31 closing date.

Over the weekend I talked with Mayor Christian and several councillors about the quota and delay rumours and Mr. Christian assured me the city has, “no intention to limit the number of legal operations.”

I asked Councillor Singh for his thoughts on the rumoured preferential treatment and he stressed that the “pathway for illegal to legal operation” was something the city needed to address and should be a fair and consistent process for all.

So why the letters suggesting current cannabis retailers close prior to March 31? Personally, I think it’s some senior city staff and a couple of councillors overly fixated on the issue of grandfathering existing locations. And I feel this letter is part of their administrative overkill mindset.

As for finding that pathway to legal operation, the main criteria should be founded on the required approval of a cannabis retailer’s application by the BC government. Meeting the standards set out by senior government should be the city’s key benchmark for moving forward on municipal approval.

Obstructing the process based on a failure to comply with a suggestion sounds more like retribution than good governance based on fair and equitable policy.