Letter To The Editor: Council Should Reject P&Z’s Recommendation Regarding Cannabis Retail…

By COLLETTE HUNTER
Los Alamos

Note: The Public Hearing regarding Cannabis Retail is scheduled to take place Dec. 17, 2021, at 6pm via Zoom. The Agenda, Agenda Packets, and Zoom credentials for this hearing should be posted to the County’s Legistar website (losalamos.legistar.com) by Friday, Dec. 3. I invite all members of our Los Alamos Community to attend. I will be there!

Atomic City Cannabis Company is an integrated cannabis microbusiness requesting to open a home-based small business in Los Alamos County (more on that later). I would like to open this home-based microbusiness on July 1, 2022.

To that end, I have been participating, in good faith, in the state and local public processes with regard to Cannabis anything since July 2021 when I attended my first LAC Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I have attended some county government, and a few state government meetings since that time, and have participated in this public process where I thought it was appropriate to do so.

It has been horrific to watch as what I call “Reefer Madness” attitudes and extreme haste have been allowed to pervade the County’s Cannabis decision-making process. It seems that the County Government codification machine is stuck in the early Twentieth Century – perhaps in 1938, when the propaganda and exploitation film “Reefer Madness” was produced/distributed by the Hearst Media Empire. How embarrassing if really true!

I say this because I have watched the Planning Department make presentations bereft of information about Cannabis itself, let alone Cannabis cultivation, manufacturing or retail. These same presentations also seem to belong on some government official’s opinion, and worse, opinion uninformed by Public Input.

The Planning Department, the P&Z Commission, and now a certain county councilor seem bent on keeping small Cannabis businesses, and indeed Cannabis itself out of LA County! The County Council seems content to make decisions based on opinion, and not based on factual information with public input!

I do recognize and appreciate that there was a Town Hall regarding Cannabis Retail in early November. However, as far as I’m concerned it was too little too late. When the Cannabis Regulation Act was enacted on March 31, 2021, the County should have started appropriately gathering Public Input, and input from Cannabis Consumers and Patients.

Also, the extreme haste to which I referred earlier led to an apparent violation of the County’s own process for gathering public input – remember the 5.5 days advance notice of the Town Hall? For a public event such as a Cannabis Town Hall, I believe advance notice should have been given at least 15 days before the event, and should have been much better advertised on radio stations in the Los Alamos region; as well as advertised in the County’s own Legistar.

The Town Hall was listed on the Legistar for a few hours on November 2nd or 3rd; then, mysteriously disappeared. What the heck? I attended the entire 3.5 hour Planning and Zoning Commission meeting regarding Cannabis Retail on October 27, 2021, and was horrified by the entire meeting!

I have been the leader of business meetings such as this, and had a hard time believing my senses! The best way to characterize this meeting is as a “hot mess”, or, perhaps “train wreck”.

First of all, I came prepared to give Public Testimony as the meeting had been advertised as a Public Hearing. At the meeting, this was changed, by the Chair, at the last minute, to only Public Comment. Public Comment does not carry the same weight as Public Testimony, and I felt cheated and dismissed!

I was supposed to be able to give a second round of public comment at the end of the meeting after the commission’s discussion, and was not allowed to do so (dismissed again!). The meeting was summarily adjourned without this comment period. I gave what was supposed to be my testimony as comment instead. Then, there were several comments made by several commissioners during their discussion period, to wit: “I’m burnt” “I don’t know anything about Cannabis” “I’m not going to say Cannabis Users are bad people, but…..” “Los Alamos is such a quaint town…” (some synonyms for Quaint: eccentric, erratic, odd, outlandish, peculiar, singular, strange, unique) “What do you want?” (Uttered to me after I had given my comment indicating what I wanted).

All of these comments by commissioners amounted to “Reefer Madness”, as far as I’m concerned. I was also treated to a screaming match between the Chair and a Commissioner about the vote that was going to be taken that night. The report created after the meeting mentioned my public comment, but termed it “not persuasive” to the decision at hand. My public comment addressed concerns I thought the Commission might have regarding homebased Cannabis retail; yet they seemed to have already made up their minds to eliminate small home-based Cannabis businesses long before the meeting!

The presentation of material for the commission, prepared by the Planning Department, was long on opinion, and very short on actual factual information about Cannabis/Cannabis Retail, and even shorter on Public Input! This whole meeting was embarrassing, and produced a flawed recommendation for Cannabis Retail.

The presentation of/recommendation for Cannabis Cultivation and Manufacturing was similarly flawed, bereft of information and sufficient public input, and should have been rejected then.

The Cannabis Regulation Act is well thought out, and written with “Reefer Madness” concerns in mind. Many other states have legalized recreational Cannabis, and those states’ laws and rules were modeled when our legislature crafted the Cannabis Regulation Act.

Please allow the Cannabis Regulation Act to guide the process of Cannabis industry creation in Los Alamos County; and reject/rescind any recommendations/decisions that were made based upon the P&Z Commission/Planning Department shenanigans just described. The ‘shenanigans’ all amount to smoke and mirrors designed to deceive by omission and hastily produce a certain preordained outcome.

Does the County Council wish to codify Cannabis based on lack of information and lack of public input? Also, I just read Councilor Izraelevitz’s letter in the Daily Post (link), I understand it was meant to be satirical; however, it just further highlights for me the deleterious effects of the “Reefer Madness” attitudes being used by certain community members to say Cannabis should not be sold at all in LA County. Q is just a letter in the alphabet, and should not be used to take a “shot” at this new industry. Councilor Izraelevitz should know that the letter Q nowadays is more strongly associated with a terrible conspiracy theory, and not with the Q clearance granted at national labs. And so he takes his shot by equating Cannabis with conspiracy theory and lab clearances?

Also, his satirical letter to his “banker” shows his lack of knowledge about Cannabis in general, and obtaining loans for same. There are exactly two financial institutions in New Mexico doing business with the Cannabis Industry. They are state chartered financial institutions. federally chartered financial institutions are not involved in the Cannabis Industry, and would not even entertain Mr. Izraelevitz’s satirical request for a loan, anyway. Councilor Izraelevitz supposedly represents all constituents in Los Alamos County, but I’m not convinced of that at all. It seems to me that he would rather listen to, accommodate and represent only constituents who agree with him. That’s MY opinion, and I’m sticking to it!

Now, let’s talk about preventing a woman-owned, home-based integrated Cannabis microbusiness from operating in Los Alamos County! The “Reefer Madness” attitude taken by some in the Planning Department, most commissioners on the Planning and Zoning Commission, and some County Councilors is anathema to a Woman’s right to a (retirement) occupation of her choosing. Yes, I retired from the financial sector in 2019, because I wanted to be ready in case Recreational Cannabis became legal in New Mexico (as it looked to do at the time).

I have been cultivating my own medicinal Cannabis for the last three growing seasons, and I am really good at it! I want my Cannabis Business to start very small, grow slowly, and remain healthy throughout my retirement (ergo why I’m applying to operate a home-based MICRObusiness). Frankly, I see no good reason for the County to restrict my rights to do this on my own property. Does County Government really wish to do this? Has the Council considered the consequences of haste, and gathered as much Public Input as it can? Also, how is it the County Government’s business to tell me how I can use my own property? I own my property free and clear, and should be free to grow Cannabis on it as I see fit (while observing the law and its rules, of course!).

Oh yes, and I have submitted an application with the required supporting documentation to obtain a “provisional” state license for the microbusiness operation. The application is currently being reviewed by the Cannabis Control Division of the State Regulation and Licensing Department for issuance of the provisional license. The license will be provisional because I lack a County Business License. I lack the County Business license, but not for lack of trying. In fact on November 8, 2021, I finished submission of an application with all supporting documentation necessary to obtain a Home-based business license from Los Alamos County. However, on November 20th, I received a “denial of business license” letter from Los Alamos County stating that I needed to obtain the State License first, and that I could “reapply” for the County business license once I had the State License.

To me, this is merely a “stall tactic”, and circuitous logic employed in a short-sighted attempt to make an end run around the public governance process. It also represents “moving the goalposts”, as my application met all existing county requirements for a home-based business license (where there is accessory use of our home for the business). With all of this said, I urge the Council to not only reject the P&Z Commission recommendation regarding Cannabis Retail, but also to rescind the previous codification of Cannabis Cultivation and Manufacturing. Then, work on and enact, if necessary, county cannabis codification that reflects the new state law rather than the “reefer madness” opinions of a few. After all, legalized recreational Cannabis is here to stay, and codification should be dealt with in a more informed, public, and forthright manner. Thank you!

Search
LOS ALAMOS

ladailypost.com website support locally by OviNuppi Systems