Monday, Dec. 2, could have felt like the movie “Groundhog Day” in Woodland as the City Council once again rejected a recommendation by the city’s Planning Commission to permit cannabis retail sales within city limits.
Despite the legalization of cannabis in Washington State, its sale remains prohibited in all zones of Woodland.
In its latest move, the council voted, 6-1, against an ordinance that would have allowed cannabis sales in the city’s C-2 — “highway commercial” — zone, near the Interstate 5 Exit 21 and Exit 22 interchanges. Only Councilman Gabe Huston voted in favor. This marked the fourth time the council has voted down a rezoning proposal from the Planning Commission. Each time a business owner or individual files an application proposing a zoning change, they must pay $2,000. Earlier this year, on July 1, the council also rejected, 4-3, enacting a public ballot measure to gauge community opinion on cannabis sales.
Last week’s decision followed a series of public comments representing the town’s divided perspective.
Darlene Johnson, a local resident, expressed concern that allowing cannabis sales would encourage drug use among children.
“We shouldn’t have anything here that encourages the use of drugs at all. And … if you vote for this, that’s what you’re doing. You’re encouraging the use of drugs,” she said.
In response, Huston questioned whether Johnson was aware that individuals must be 21 or older to enter a cannabis store. He argued that parental education should mitigate the risk of underage use.
“...Three vape shops have opened up in town, but I haven’t heard any pushback from anyone in the community about vape shops. I think that’s a little more harmful than marijuana would be, wouldn’t you agree?” Huston asked, referencing the rise in vape addiction among teenagers.
Johnson pushed back, arguing that cannabis poses greater risks to brain health than alcohol or vaping.
“I think it’s unhealthy, but vapes, I don’t believe affect the brain. The brain is who you are and how you feel about things … [Marijuana] affects a completely different part of the brain than alcohol does. It affects your thinking part. Alcohol affects your talking and your walking and that,” Johnson said.
Not all residents shared Johnson’s viewpoint. Local resident Katie Brown voiced support for cannabis retail, emphasizing potential economic benefits. Brown, who has children attending all levels of public school, said community members she spoke with were unopposed to opening a shop.
“I’ve spoken to countless people within the community … I haven’t heard one person say that they are against it … I think we need to hear the community, and we need to hear what they have to say,”
Councilor Carol Rounds reiterated her opposition, citing minimal financial benefits to the city as well as federal laws prohibiting cannabis.
“Most of the money goes to the state. Very little comes down to the city when you sell pot, and it’s federally still illegal,” Rounds said.
Huston argued that even a single cannabis store near the I-5 interchange could boost the local economy.
“When the people come into town they don’t just go into the pot shop. They go into Walmart. They go to Ace [Hardware]. They go here and there. They’re spending their money all over town … If you’re looking at it from a business sense, put your personal feelings out and look at it as a straight business, and it’s a no-brainer,” Huston said.
Trish Schmidt, the city’s human resources clerk, noted that additional local taxes could be implemented to generate revenue. She shared insights from her family’s experience with cannabis retail in Portland.
“They did work with their state and work with their city as far as taxes, education, that sort of thing … That might be an avenue to check out,” she said.
The council’s earlier July 1 vote against a public ballot drew criticism from some residents. One unnamed commenter described the decision as “anti-democratic” for ignoring the community’s voice.
Councilor Melissa Doughty agreed, stressing the importance of gauging public opinion before moving forward with any ordinance.
“I think that it’s time we start listening because, otherwise, we don’t deserve the seats that we’re sitting in right now,” Doughty said.
While Huston remained the sole supporter of the ordinance, Doughty and Councilor Jason Friend stated they would not support any measure without first consulting the public through a ballot.
