On Wednesday, October 17 Canada will become the first major country to legalize cannabis for recreational use. There is apprehension and excitement depending on your perspective. At the outset, it’s important to keep in mind that legalization is not a signal that cannabis is no longer considered harmful, but rather our society has decided that the criminal consequences of using cannabis were not proportional to its harmful effects. Societal changes like this are awkward and it will take time for our laws to catch up. It will take trial and error to find the balance between rights of users and non-users and determine what responsible use looks like.
Two Bylaws: Consumption and Land Use
Municipal councils have a number of responsibilities to ensure a safe and healthy community as we manage the transition from illegal to legal. Each choice presents competing tradeoffs.
First Cannabis Bylaw: Consumption
The rules around consumption are set by municipalities, not by the province—unlike alcohol rules which are provincially regulated. Municipalities can’t pass criminal laws. Our local bylaws aim to create rules that help us live in harmony.
The Edmonton Approach
The basic question before council was whether to treat cannabis like tobacco or alcohol since it shares characteristics with both. We initially decided to expand the existing smoking bylaw to include cannabis and vaping. This is the approach Edmonton has taken. It would have banned all forms of smoking in almost all public places, but allowed smoking on sidewalks. This was an attempt to create a public space where consumption would be permitted because unlike alcohol users cannabis users have no bars/restaurants, etc.
Why not simply limit consumption to private property? Because some residents live in buildings with no smoking rules. Those residents would have nowhere to consume a legal product. That would defeat the whole point of legalization.
The main criticism of treating cannabis like smoking is that it’s lax, but keep this in mind, Medicine Hat is on the restrictive end of municipalities when it comes to smoking. This proposed bylaw (highlighted blue line below) included bans on playgrounds, parks, sports fields, beaches, outdoor markets, events, and trails. That’s anywhere but roadways and sidewalks. However, sidewalks are hubs of activity and there is potential for conflict between smokers and non-smokers especially considering the strong smell of cannabis.
The practicality of enforcement is another aspect of any bylaw and it was our understanding that the Medicine Hat Police Service supported our initial direction. However, this turned out to be inaccurate. We also then heard from Alberta Health Services and the Medicine Hat Public and Catholic School Boards who asked council to treat cannabis like alcohol not tobacco. I knew I would get some pushback from the community, but to also face opposition from those in charge of enforcement (MHPS), education (school boards) and health providers (AHS) was plenty to tip the scales for me.
Collin Gallant’s column on this reversal paints council as indecisive with us lamenting the lack of provincial standards on cannabis use. That’s not exactly accurate. The mistake we made was that our public consultation had blind spots relating to key stakeholders. That said, council often receives little public feedback until the reality of certain policies sets in. It’s not the ideal process, but no matter when we get feedback it’s helpful.
The Calgary Approach
Council will now create a new bylaw dedicated to cannabis with the intent to treat it like alcohol. A complete public ban including sidewalks is a given. But this bylaw will likely contain a number of exemptions. This is analogous to Calgary’s approach. The subject of which exemptions should be permitted will be debated at council. Here are the exemptions I support and why:
Cannabis is an approved medicine for a whole host of conditions thus the bylaw should include some sort of medical exemption. But this does not mean a license to smoke anywhere. My suggestion will be to treat medical use subject to the same restrictions as tobacco smoke.
I will support permits for outdoor events, like a beer garden. I think we should also look at permits for private outdoor events, like a liquor license.
I will also be supporting an exemption for smoking, of all kinds, at campsites. Yes, the smell can’t be contained to your campsite, but that is a minor nuisance and I think a reasonable accommodation.
The toughest question relates to those living where smoking is banned. (Landlords or condominium corporations can prohibit smoking of any kind.) How are they supposed to consume a legal product? We cannot legalize a product and then make no space for consumption for some Canadians. There is no magic outdoor place that won’t offend anyone. The suggestion with the most promise would be to designate environmental reserves as a permitted space. With the trouble finding city owned land to designate you can see why cities have designated sidewalks for cannabis consumption. They are the most widely available pedestrian city owned land available.
Calgary’s cannabis bylaw gives their council the power to designate spaces for public consumption. They initially had the idea to designate certain parks. This idea has fallen flat and received strong opposition. I feel designating certain parks would be similarly problematic here. So while their bylaw states that council may designate certain areas, so far they have not, and on Oct 17 Calgary will have no space available for public consumption.
The Practicality of a Public Ban
A year from now, the federal government will legalize edibles adding even more complexity to regulating public consumption. The practicality of enforcing a ban on edibles (gummies, cookies, brownies, etc) is near impossible. But I was persuaded by the argument that the practicality of bylaw enforcement is not the only consideration. Bylaws are a signal from the community about what we consider to be harmful behaviour. A public ban helps us model behaviour we want to see and want youth to emulate. Modeling behaviour, in this case, is especially important because cannabis use is most harmful to adolescent minds. According to Health Canada you shouldn’t smoke weed until you’re 25 if you must at all.
Every bylaw is meant to deal with the most egregious of offenders, the 5% of people who don’t use common sense.
No consumption bylaw. What now?
Since council reversed course late in the game we will not have a bylaw regulating cannabis consumption by Oct 17. There is a silver lining to this delay. Our community can see what problems emerge then craft rules to meet those issues. Until our bylaw is ready cannabis consumption regulations default to provincial minimum rules.
Here they are:
Hatters will be allowed to consume cannabis in their homes (assuming your landlord or condo association permit use) and in some public spaces where smoking tobacco is allowed (Medicine Hat’s smoking rules), but use will be banned in cars.
In an effort to protect children and limit second-hand exposure, public smoking or vaping of cannabis in Alberta will be prohibited from any place where tobacco is restricted, and in the following places:
on any hospital property, school property or child care facility property
in or within a prescribed distance from:
a playground
a sports or playing field
a skateboard or bicycle park
a zoo
an outdoor theatre
an outdoor pool or splash pad
from any motor vehicles, with the exception of those being used as a temporary residences, such as a parked RV.
There will also be no consumption of cannabis at any cannabis retail outlets.
For the time being, you will be able to smoke weed on sidewalks, but you must be 5 meters from doorways and 10 meters away from public places. Cannabis users be happy it’s legal. Be considerate that the vast majority of Hatters don’t consume cannabis and that public smoking was the second highest concern of Hatters. So when smoking keep away from people.
Top concerns of Hatters. You can read the rest of the survey’s results here. Results are not statistically representative of Medicine Hat.
Public Safety
For those that overdo it and become publicly inebriated, there are criminal laws on the books that the police will use. Specifically the Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Act section 115(1).
Other than modeling behaviour the another main concern from non-cannabis users is exposure to secondhand smoke. Research is still in the early stages and we have plenty of unanswered questions. Some studies have shown that THC can enter your bloodstream from second hand exposure, but most tests involve participants sharing indoor spaces in proximity with cannabis smokers. Nothing I’ve read indicates that walking by someone smoking a joint outside could trigger a failed drug test or get you high. But obviously I’m not a doctor. The smell will be a nuisance on occasion. There’s no getting around that.
Here’s additional reading on the subject:
Will I get a ‘contact high’ just walking down the street? Maclean’s Magazine
Health effects of exposure to second- and third-hand marijuana smoke: a systematic review
What are the effects of secondhand exposure to marijuana smoke?
Of course, cannabis smoke can be dangerous beyond THC. Any smoke is harmful so don’t smoke it near anyone without asking permission—be courteous. Definitely not with children around.
Workplace safety is another high concern. Some people are worried that legalization is an invitation to consume cannabis anywhere and anytime. I don’t get this concern. You can’t show up to work inebriated regardless of substance. For people with safety-sensitive jobs, employers will likely have additional rules. Check out the Alberta Government’s page on cannabis rules.
Driving under the influence regardless of substance, alcohol or cannabis, is a serious crime and danger to the community. Don’t do it.
Second Cannabis Bylaw: Land use Bylaw 4487
(and my objections)
Prior to the consumption debate council amended the land use bylaw to regulate the location of cannabis stores. You can read the bylaw here.
I voted against this bylaw. I’ll first explain the bylaw then my reasons for voting against it.
The areas in pink outline where cannabis retail can be located.
Here is the briefing note on the bylaw.
There were a number of factors and guiding principles that staff and council considered.
We must comply with the provincial minimums of 100 meter setbacks from schools, future schools, and hospitals.
We must consider federal government policy priorities related to legalization such as limiting the illegal market. In other words, if we want to stamp out the black market we need legitimate businesses to succeed so we shouldn’t make cannabis businesses too onerous to operate.
Create separation between uses that might be sensitive to cannabis retail such as social services that deal with mental health and addiction.
Prevent the acceptance of cannabis use by youth through limiting the visibility of cannabis retail from areas where youth and children frequent.
Prevent unmanageable growth in the number of cannabis retail stores by limiting retail opportunities.
Incorporate design elements that will make retail sites as safe as possible.
Provide quality commercial retail opportunities and promote economic development.
Proceed with caution as it is typically much more difficult to take away opportunities than it is to introduce new opportunities; therefore as cannabis retail potentially becomes more generally accepted by the community, additional opportunities could be introduced.
The final bylaw must, and does, meet the provincial minimums, but also goes beyond provincial rules by mandating separation distances from additional sensitive uses.
This bylaw uses a conservative approach by establishing separation distances often in excess of the provincial minimums as you can see from some select detail images.
The purple blocks are sensitive areas.
The yellow displays the size of the buffer zones.
Cannabis retail are permitted in the pink areas.
The “L”s are current liquor stores. There are no restrictions where liquor stores can be located.
My Objections
There are some things I like. I like the distances from certain social agencies to avoid adjacency. I like not restricting clusters and no minimum distances from liquor stores. It’s a pretty free market approach. This bylaw is a reasonable accommodation of the many competing interests involved. My objection was fairly narrow in scope. However, it involves process, which is important to me.
Every briefing note includes alternative options in addition to staff’s recommendation.
In my opinion, an important option was missing: a land use bylaw simply adhering to the provincial minimum standards.
Commercial development does more to help the city’s bottom line than any other kind. Considering the number one and number two strategic priorities of this council are fiscal responsibility and economic vitality we should have debated the option to minimize regulation for this growing industry. We’re always complaining about over regulation of industry and this was a good opportunity to consider alternative regulations.
Additionally, council purposely did not limit the number of cannabis retail licenses because we wanted the market to set the industry. Yet one of the guiding principles of this bylaw directly conflicts with this idea--since this bylaw aimed to “prevent unmanageable growth in the number of cannabis retail stores by limiting retail opportunities.”
My objection also stemmed from our use of the cannabis public survey to justify this land-use bylaw. Staff correctly pointed out the survey’s results affirmed some of the choices in the bylaw.
57% of respondents desired cannabis stores more than 200 meters from schools
Respondents also did not want cannabis retail in small commercial zones in residential areas.
But the survey has some weaknesses. The goal of the survey was to encourage as much participation as possible. For example, we did not limit IP addresses to allow for family members sharing a computer to fill out the survey, but this also means that some people could potentially fill out multiple surveys. Staff monitored this for egregious offenders, but by no means are the results of the survey representative of the city. Therefore we should be careful about the weight assigned to these results.
Instead of focusing on how the community felt I would have preferred to have better fleshed out alternatives. Understanding different land-use options and what potential drawbacks will be. I asked for the bylaw to be referred back to staff for development of this option, but this idea was not supported by council.
Presumably, the goal of banning cannabis stores in neighbourhood commercial zones was to limit visibility from areas where youth and children frequent. But the bylaw allows for cannabis retail to be located at the Medicine Hat Mall. A store at the mall would be the highest visibility location for youth. Which young person doesn’t frequent the mall? I understand the rationale, but the inclusion of the Mall completely undercuts it.
This wasn’t a purely academic objection. One cannabis retail store would have liked to be located in the neighbourhood commercial zone near Southridge Drive SE and Sage Road SE, between a bar and a liquor store and met the minimum distance of 100 meters from the nearby school. This seemed a reasonable location for me, but not allowed since the bylaw prohibited these areas.
For these reasons I voted against this bylaw. The bylaw is acceptable, but a reasonable case can be made for regulating cannabis retail to simply the provincial minimum. I think the public is better served when all options are available for council to debate.
License fees
Medicine Hat will see three cannabis stores open on October 17. They have gone through a rigorous screening process at the provincial and municipal level. Retail salespersons must complete Sell Safe, a mandatory social responsibility training program similar to ProServe for alcohol salespersons. Minors can’t set foot inside. Hours are set to match liquor stores. Cannabis stores must have extensive security measures.
City business license fees were set at $1,000 ensuring the average taxpayer does not subsidize the research, implementation, and enforcement of cannabis legalization.
It’s an open question how successful cannabis retail will be. All stores must purchase their cannabis from the provincial government, which sets the price. This way prices are fairly even across the province. The majority of the retail cost of cannabis go to producers and to the federal and provincial government in taxation. The retailer will have the hardest time making money.
Don’t forget that brick and mortar retail must nowadays compete with online sales. This applies for cannabis as well. The Province of Alberta holds the monopoly on online cannabis sales for the time being. It’ll be interesting to see what the market actually is for cannabis.
It’s a balancing act. On the one hand we need legitimate commerce to drive out the black market. On the other hand corporate interests would have a strong incentive to drive and increase cannabis use. For example, that’s why the government has created restrictions on packaging design, so that we don’t make the product too appealing. Contrast that with California’s free market approach to legalization. There consumer culture (beautiful packaging for one) has taken over enticing new users.
A cannabis product shelf in California from Cannabis Now.
Production
Of course, if you prefer you can grow up to four plants yourself for personal use. However, since landlords or condominium corporation can prohibit cannabis plants check your agreements before planting seeds. Even if you own your own home growing cannabis might damage your home and hurt the value of your house, so proceed with caution.
Medicine Hat will soon be home to the world’s largest cannabis greenhouse. Aurora Sun, on Medicine Hat’s north end, will produce medical cannabis for global export. The taxation of this facility, or rather lack thereof, was recently extensively covered by the Medicine Hat News. The Province of Alberta is phasing out the ability of municipalities to levy property taxes on greenhouses. Greenhouses are currently 60% exempt from local taxes, rising by 10% each year until 2022 when they will be completely exempt from property taxes.
This was an effort to support farmers and agricultural production in Alberta. However, it’s not clear how intentional the inclusion of cannabis greenhouses was to this policy. Last month the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association passed a resolution asking the Province of Alberta to amend this policy to allow for cannabis production taxation. The province would have to accept this recommendation to allow for property taxes to be levied here in Medicine Hat. While the city currently misses out on property taxes there is still enormous benefit from the over 400 jobs estimated at the facility.
1923: The End of Prohibition in Alberta
Underlying the conversation around consumption rules and retail store locations is the fear that Medicine Hat might be overrun with this vice. Weed smokers on every corner and a cannabis store on every block. This remains a possibility, but I think a fairly remote one. Stats Canada estimates about 15% of Canadians use cannabis. That’s significant, but not a huge number.
It’s helpful to remember that Alberta has been in a similar situation before. 95 years ago Albertans voted to end the prohibition on alcohol. 57% of Albertans voted in favour to allow the government sale of all liquors. Yet a sizable number of Albertans, 38%, voted to keep prohibition.
There is a reason why alcohol was outlawed for a period of time. It’s negative effects on society was clear and widespread. There was real fear about what would happen when prohibition ended. The run up to the referendum was captured by the Lethbridge Herald in the fall of 1923, which ran a series of columns arguing for both sides—the Prohibitionists and the Moderationists. The two arguments can easily be applied to the cannabis debate today.
Government monopoly of liquor sales, that continues in Ontario and Saskatchewan, is a remnant of this debate and a concession to prohibitionists worried about too permissive rules. Ditto for restrictions on hours of operations and the inability to buy liquor in grocery stores, like you can in Quebec and America.
Since the end of prohibition, we have continually tweaked our laws to better find the balance between restrictions and freedom for responsible use. Breathalyzers were not ready when prohibition ended. Private liquor sales were not permitted. Over time we have improved our understanding and education in many areas of alcohol harm reduction. There is now a strong cultural norm against drinking and driving. Pregnant mothers now know that drinking harms the developing fetus.
There are still plenty of negative effects of alcohol consumption. Our society continually works to minimize these harms. There are still irresponsible users of alcohol and we have laws to hold them accountable. In the same way, we can expect to see an evolution of cannabis laws and norms develop over time.
In the long term, educating the public about what constitutes moderate responsible use has a much greater positive impact on public health than prohibition. Tobacco consumption has decreased markedly due to public awareness of its dangers. The harmful effects of alcohol are still numerous, but we continue to make progress mitigating its harms. Now that cannabis is legal we can concentrate our efforts on education instead of criminal enforcement. I believe our society will be better for it.