After further review, involving the Planning Commission and additional public hearings, the county voted to permit marijuana production and processing establishments if they complied with notice provisions and strict zoning restrictions. On the eastern side of Washington state, the Spokane County Commission imposed a moratorium on outdoor marijuana farms in November 2016, because of residential complaints about odors from marijuana agriculture and processing; at the time of the moratorium, over 160 marijuana growers and processors were operating in the county.By the end date of our data collection , some counties still had moratoriums in place and stated in policy documents they were awaiting additional information to make a permanent decision. A few counties permitted marijuana facilities but integrated policy mechanisms to address residential concerns about matters such as odors, bright lighting, and increased traffic and perceived risk of crime associated with these establishments. For example, Chelan County, Washington, required marijuana producers and processors to register and pay a fee for an enforcement fund to ensure regulatory compliance.Although policy communication and advocacy strategies varied by county and state, we found patterns during our qualitative review of ordinance and newspaper article data related to primary county-level policy stakeholders, and arguments in support of or opposition to local marijuana policy. Primary stakeholders and advocates involved in county-level marijuana policy debates were similar in both states and included elected county officials tasked with decision making , law enforcement ,greenhouse rolling benches individual marijuana growers/farmers, marijuana business license applicants, parents, and other residents.
Several ordinances also named county voters as stakeholders who would be impacted by policy decisions. Some ordinances named specific county government departments , zoning authorities/commissions, or public entities as local stakeholders. We did not identify any specific advocacy groups or advocates external to the county involved in county-level policy debates.Our analysis of arguments in support of or opposition to specific policies revealed that many counties pointed to local public opinion as a basis for decision making, as well as local election results from the statewide 2012 marijuana legalization referendum, as evidence of either support of or opposition to legalizing marijuana facilities. For example, in 2012, The Wall Street Journal quoted the chair of the Douglas County, Colorado, Board of Commissioners as saying the local election results supported a prohibition: “Our county has never passed or supported anything regarding the legalization of marijuana…we tend to be very conservative,” he said.35 Alternatively, in Jefferson County, Washington, the ordinance included the quote, “Whereas, some 65% of voters in Jefferson County voted yes on Initiative 502,”to support allowing marijuana facilities. Similarly, a local newspaper article about a 2015 proposal to extend a moratorium in Huerfano County, Colorado, quoted a resident as saying, “Legalization of marijuana passed by 60 percent of the vote here in Huerfano, and we need to respect the will of the people.”Table 2 presents the main policy arguments, including public opinion, to support or oppose county-level marijuana policy positions in Colorado and Washington. Frequent arguments in Colorado and Washington in favor of allowing some or all commercial marijuana facilities focused on economic gain, reduced criminality, and potential health benefits. Economic arguments from proponents of legalized marijuana varied and included mention of local revenue increases for the municipality, increased employment opportunities , expanded tourism, and personal financial gain for local residents involved in marijuana cultivation, processing, or retail. In Whitman County, Colorado, opponents of a moratorium said it “would prohibit people from getting jobs and cause the county to lose out on revenue from the industry.”
During a community forum in Wahkiakum County, Washington, a resident pointed to local revenue for a nearby county in support of allowing marijuana retail facilities, “I am merely speaking from a financial perspective…The county is in financial difficulty, and this is a legal revenue source available to the county.”Criminality arguments—less commonly mentioned by marijuana legalization proponents than economic arguments—pointed to the potential reduction of illegal marijuana markets and activity as a benefit.We identified a wider variety of arguments used in support of prohibitions, including economic loss arguments to counter economic gain arguments from proponents of legalized marijuana. Economic loss arguments pointed to the possible loss of tax revenues , increased lawsuits, and increased cost of law enforcement to enforce regulations. Concerns about public health, safety, and welfare were among the most frequently mentioned arguments against permitting local marijuana establishments. Residents noted concerns about environmental hazards , increased addiction, increased traffic issues around retailers, and the risk of accidental poisoning or overdose among minors. Additionally, elected local officials and residents pointed to federal law, namely the illegality of the cultivation, possession, sale, and use of marijuana under federal criminal statutes, as a deterrent for allowing marijuana facilities.The article noted residents’ concerns about illegal growing of marijuana in Colorado, which was described as a substantial challenge for local and federal law enforcement. Three minor arguments included land use concerns, proximity to states where marijuana was illegal, and possible harm to the county’s reputation or local identity. For the latter, proponents of bans/moratoriums pointed to potential harm or loss of neighborhood character/identity, suggesting that allowing a marijuana facility would be detrimental to the status quo. In the following sections, we provide illustrative examples of four counties to describe in more detail the various county policy environments and highlight policy changes within the counties.
These counties are classified using a brief version of the rural-urban categories from the USDA Economic Research Service’s Rural-Urban Continuum Codes: metropolitan; non-metropolitan, urban; and rural.40On November 12, 2013, Mason County, a non-metropolitan, urban county located in western Washington , initially adopted an ordinance allowing licensed marijuana producers, processors, and retailers.Meeting minutes from a county commissioner meeting on June 24, 2014, highlighted resident concerns about marijuana producers and processors during a public comment period when a majority of marijuana opponents,greenhouse bench top self-identified as county residents who lived near a licensed marijuana production or manufacturing facility,expressed NIMBY sentiments about these facilities. Noted concerns included possible criminal activity, safety issues, odor problems, environmental risks , decreased property value, and law enforcement implementation issues.On July 1, 2014, the board of commissioners enacted a six-month moratorium prohibiting building or land use related to the production and processing of marijuana, allowing these activities solely in agricultural and industrial zones .On July 22, 2014, opponents of the moratorium said they felt specifically targeted and residents should “be concerned about meth, heroin and other drugs, not legal marijuana,” in addition to expressing concerns about financial losses. Proponents reiterated arguments about the potential crime impact, loss of property value, and marijuana being “against federal law.” Some residents asked for more time for public input and recommended revising the ordinance to address residential concerns but allow legal cultivation, processing, and sales.On October 21, 2014, the board of commissioners voted to repeal the moratorium and simultaneously issued code amendments to address certain residential concerns .Costilla County is a rural county located along the southern Colorado border with New Mexico. It presents a unique local jurisdiction that enacted policies to allow cultivation and retail facilities.Permitting these facilities contrasted with other rural counties that opted to prohibit all marijuana facilities. Costilla County spans 1,227 square miles with a large swath of high desert land lacking in building or residential infrastructure. The low cost of land, coupled with state legalization of recreational marijuana, led to an influx of outsiders interested in purchasing property for commercial marijuana cultivation and production.Marijuana facility licensing and license renewal fees were sources of revenue in addition to the distribution of the retail marijuana state sales tax. Local governments could also implement their own local sales or excise taxes. Concerns included the increased use of educational and social service resources for new families from out of state and lack of local licensing and enforcement personnel. The Denver Post quoted a county commissioner as saying there was a shift in the jail population from local residents to a majority “from outside,” but also said there was not a spike in crime in these early years.A local disagreement between a proposed marijuana cultivation facility and a museum in early 2015 highlighted the conflict between marijuana business license owners and other establishments in the county. Supporters of the museum opposed issuing a license for the proposed facility, mentioning the facility’s potential impact on minors and other museum visitors.Ultimately, the business owner decided to change the location of the marijuana cultivation facility to “be a good neighbor” and ameliorate possible odor and lighting concerns. The owner, however, continued to pursue a license for a retail facility and medical marijuana dispensary next to the museum.Chaffee County, located in the central part of Colorado, is an example of a non-metropolitan, urban county with a restrictive marijuana policy environment.
In September 2013, the county unanimously approved ordinance 2013-02, which temporarily banned new recreational marijuana establishments in the county through December 31, 2014.However, the county permitted recreational marijuana cultivation licenses in industrial zones, and some facilities that cultivated medical marijuana or manufactured medical marijuana–infused products were exempt from the ban—if such facilities were in good standing in the county and met the state and county licensing standards, they were allowed to convert to recreational facilities.Grandfathered facilities could apply for recreational facility licenses .Ordinance 2014-02,unanimously adopted in 2014, amended the prior ban through December 31, 2015, to include all marijuana facilities and limit the number of facilities in the county to six. An exception was again made for cultivation or manufacturing facilities in good standing with the county and state; these facilities were grandfathered and could renew their licenses or expand their operations and the number of plants within their existing parcel allotted. The moratorium banning any type of recreational marijuana establishment, with the exception of certain grandfathered facilities, was reissued multiple times .Benton County, Washington, is a metropolitan county bordering Oregon. This county was a unique case: it transitioned from permitting marijuana businesses to enacting moratoriums, ordinances, and zoning limitations, and eventually banning new recreational marijuana facilities while grandfathering in existing operations in response to local concerns and complaints. Benton County did not start out with a ban. In 2015, recreational marijuana retail facilities opened in the county.Later that year, multiple residents expressed concern over a marijuana grow site, which led to an emergency moratorium and public hearing process.The controversy continued, and, in late 2017, a local newspaper article featured alternate perspectives from two longtime county residents expressed during the county’s public hearing: one had concerns about the odor associated with marijuana facilities and the effect on children, whereas the other, a landowner who rented property to a marijuana producer, opposed a ban.Opponents of a ban mentioned economic empowerment and access to medicinal marijuana, whereas supporters mentioned odor and enforcement issues. The county opted to ban new marijuana retail facilities and enact a moratorium on new producers and processors. In April 2018, the board of county commissioners voted two to one to permanently ban all new marijuana production and processing operations in all unincorporated zoning districts, although over 50 licensed operators in these areas were allowed to continue operating.The commission also expanded the sheriff’s authority to enforce nuisance and odor rules in response to residential complaints.Our county-level recreational marijuana policy surveillance study reveals a patchwork of local policies in place by 2019 in the two earliest states to legalize recreational marijuana. Our findings add to existing literature that suggests state marijuana legalization policies are nuanced and complex, varying at the local level.Our policy change results highlight the importance of ongoing policy surveillance research to examine changes to local marijuana policy over time. We found 40 counties across both states prohibited all marijuana facilities by early 2019, either through temporary or permanent bans. Prior research in Washington similarly found 10 counties had moratoriums or permanent bans in effect on retail recreational cannabis outlets as of mid- 20147 and mid-2016,3 compared to 9 counties at the end of our study period . To our knowledge, this is the first study to report county-level recreational marijuana policies in Colorado. We found that nearly half of Colorado counties had prohibited all types of marijuana facilities by the end of our study period. This is a high percentage compared to Washington. Of note, the lower percentage in Washington may be partially explained by Washington’s merger of recreational and medical marijuana markets in 2015.