Residents Weigh In On Cannabis Establishments And Use In Guilford

GUILFORD, CT — Several Guilford residents spoke against a proposed ordinance and outright ban on cannabis establishments and use on town property during a public hearing in front of the Board of Selectmen Monday night.

Previously, the board enacted ordinances establishing a temporary limited-time moratorium on cannabis establishments in Guilford through June 30, only a few weeks away.

The proposed ordinance, which does not apply to medical cannabis dispensaries, calls for the prohibition of cannabis establishments, cannabis events, cannabis product use on town property and the sale, gift or transfer of cannabis products on town property.

First Selectman Matt Hoey said if the town fails to act and come up with some sort of ordinance, Guilford "will have absolutely no control over how many, or where, any of the 11 categories of cannabis business can take place."

Throughout the hour-and-a-half public hearing, most residents spoke against an outright ban.

A survey conducted by the town in 2022 on cannabis in Guilford was referenced several times.

Hoey thanked residents for their comments and praised everyone for the "civil" public hearing. The board did not take any action Monday night.

"What I'm hearing is not what we put out tonight, which is an outright ban," Hoey said. "What I'm hearing is people would like to see something that says, 'Yes, it can be allowed, in the following way...' That's going to take more than us having a couple of conversations after board of selectmen meetings. It's going to be a series of workshops."

Matthew Rader, a 14-year resident of Guilford, said he's in favor of allowing cannabis establishments and use in town.

"The main reason is what's on our sign as you enter the town. What does it say? It says, 'An agricultural community since 1639.' Cannabis is a plant, it's agriculture," Rader said, suggesting farmers in North Guilford could cultivate product. "Guilford is known for very high-quality produce... I would love Guilford to be known as a place people could travel to and enjoy organic, craft, locally-grown cannabis."

Another resident, Bill Dwyer, said he's opposed to the proposed ordinance, "although not completely."

"I think it's past time for Guilford to get involved," he said, noting the benefits of reaping potentially large tax revenues from cannabis sales. "That's not a bad thing."

Dwyer said it would be a "great idea" for farmers in North Guilford to cultivate cannabis, but there would need to be rules in place.

Hoey spoke later in the meeting about tax revenues.

"If we were to legalize any of these businesses and we were to receive tax revenue, it would be my suggestion that we immediately run a funnel over to youth and family services for addiction and prevention programs, not unlike what we have already done with the opioid settlement money the town has gotten," Hoey said.

Resident Eli Feuer spoke in strong opposition to the proposed ordinance.

"I believe the proposed ban is an overly broad, unnecessary and regressive prohibition in clear defiance of the town residents' public support for cannabis-related businesses and activities," he said.

Feuer said a prohibition of cannabis opens up users to the risks of acquiring products illegally.

He also specifically pointed to Section 5 of the proposed ordinance, which says:

"It shall be unlawful for any person to use cannabis or cannabis-derived products, regardless of form or manner of ingestion, on any property owned or controlled by the Town of Guilford. This prohibition includes but is not limited to: the lighting or carrying of a lighted cannabis or marijuana cigarette or cigar or pipe, use of a vaping device producing vapor of any cannabis product, or carrying or ingestion of a cannabis edible substance."

"Situated on the Green is a store that sells alcohol. Should someone who purchases alcohol from this store and carries it across the Green to their car be subject to a fine? Feuer said. "If not, then this ordinance under consideration is inappropriately prejudicial in its focus on cannabis and calls into question the consistency with which town officials seek to regulate behaviors and substances involving potential health risks."

Resident Barbara Hargraves said she was "rather indifferent" on the matter, but added she would not want to see dispensaries "all over the place." She said she'd be in favor of a ban until the town could set more clear regulations.

"It seems like once we allow all of that to go through... It's very difficult to dial it back," she said.

Hoey said the board has had discussions, if dispensaries were allowed, to limit them to a certain number.

Debbie DeMusis, a Guilford resident, said she was happy with the ordinance, and noted it would be difficult for the town to manage and regulate use in town.

"Our communities already face risks from alcohol, nicotine, vaping and access to prescription and counterfeit drugs. We recognize the need for education and the ability to test driver impairment after marijuana use. That's not available to us," DeMusis said. "The life, health and safety of our Guilford residents are worth more than the promised tax revenue for marijuana sales."

Several residents said they wanted better communication about the scheduled public hearing.

The board said future meetings would be needed, and communication would try to be improved.