MURRAY – In a 3:2 vote, the Calloway County Fiscal Court passed a resolution Wednesday authorizing a ballot initiative that will let voters make the call on whether medical cannabis businesses, which include cultivators, producers, processors, dispensaries and safety compliance facilities, will be prohibited from operating in the county.
Starting Jan. 1, patients who meet specific guidelines will be able to possess and use cannabis (also called marijuana) for medicinal purposes legally throughout the commonwealth.
The law specifies that products sold in dispensaries must also be grown and processed in Kentucky. In order to have stocked shelves on day one, cultivators and processors need to be in production well in advance of the end of the year.
But first, prospective medical cannabis business (MCB) owners must apply for a license – that portal opened July 1 and closes Aug. 31. Among other requirements, applicants must specify where they intend to base their business operations and pay a non-refundable application fee, which can range from $3,000 to $20,000, depending on the business category.
In October, the state will hold a lottery to determine who among the applicants will get a license. The date of the lottery has yet to be determined, but regardless of when it happens, licensees have 15 days to pay the initial licensing fee – those fees range from $12,000 to $50,000. Should the lottery take place prior to Oct. 21, licensees would have to pay the fee before election day.
While local governments cannot impose restrictions on possession or use of MC within their borders, they do have a few options for if and how MCBs can operate in their jurisdictions.
Under KRS 218B.130, local governments are allowed to determine the place, time and manner in which MCBs operate within their boundaries, provided they are not less restrictive than state law. They can also establish and collect “reasonable local fees for local administration.” Enacting ordinances that impose an undue burden on MCBs is forbidden.
City and county governments may also “opt-out” by passing an ordinance that prohibits MCBs. As of yesterday, 11 out of the 120 counties in the commonwealth have passed ordinances prohibiting them in addition to 14 cities.
Benton and Mayfield are among another 14 cities statewide – and the only ones in the Purchase Area – that have notified the Office of Medical Cannabis (OMC) they plan to “opt-in” and allow MCBs to operate within city limits. Only three counties have notified OMC.
If a local government passes an ordinance prohibiting MCBs, the law authorizes citizens to use the petition process to have the issue added to the ballot in the next general election. If it passes, that would overrule a prohibition ordinance. If it fails, it cannot be put on the ballot again for three years.
But local governments are also free to preempt such actions by passing a resolution to put it on the ballot. The Murray City Council authorized such a referendum in May.
As of yesterday, voters in Ballard, Calloway, Carlisle and Hickman counties and the City of Murray will be weighing in on the issue, joining voters in 25 other counties and 20 cities across the state, according to the OMC website. The filing deadline is Aug. 13.
“This is the last month we can vote on this – whether we give our citizens the choice to vote or we just allow it to pass into Kentucky law,” District 3 Magistrate Don Cherry said after he brought the resolution for consideration at yesterday’s meeting.
Before voting on the resolution, the court approved an amendment specifying the verbiage of the ballot question. Then, by roll-call vote, District 1 Magistrate Ricky Stewart, District 2 Magistrate Larry Crutcher and Cherry voted in favor of the resolution, although Crutcher noticeably hesitated before saying, “Aye.” Judge-Executive Kenny Imes and District 4 Magistrate Paul Rister voted against it.
Imes said in an email today that he is disappointed in the outcome, but at the same time, he fully appreciates the opportunity to have citizen input on county policy. “However, it will be too late, in November, to matter much after that,” he added, referring to the timing of the license lottery in October.
Asked why he voted against the resolution, Imes said, “We should welcome any reasonable opportunity to enhance growth, provide job opportunities and growth of (the) tax base in our community,” adding that the delay is “extremely limiting (to) our desire for greater economic development opportunities and services for and in Calloway County and for those who would invest in our community.”
On the subject of his “no” vote, Rister said that he was still “on the fence” about putting it on the ballot or allowing the law to take effect unencumbered up until the meeting, with his main concern being that some voters might allow stigmas around marijuana to sway their vote.
“Let me be very upfront on this,” Rister wrote in an email today. “I have never used any type of marijuana and stand firm on helping those with addictions. If medical cannabis was a hope for a sick loved one, I would support them on their use, but not abuse.
“I definitely would agree that it should be on the ballot, had we been talking about recreational. But it’s medical. I talked to some people that admitted they would never use medical cannabis or support its use… But one spoke of her grandmother who had cancer, another man spoke of his family member that had epilepsy, another with a friend that had cancer. Their stories were all the same. When other medicines seem to be failing, or they take one medicine, but have to take six more drugs to offset the side effects of the primary drug…. Medical cannabis as gummies and oils worked for them.”
In total, Rister said he spoke to at least two dozen people about the pros and cons of medical cannabis.
“One person I spoke with heads up a local drug rehab center in our community,” he wrote. “Though he fights to help people get off drugs, he indicated if people could use medical cannabis rather than opioids, they would be better off. One pointed out that I was not a doctor, so why should I even have a say so; it’s now legal statewide, who am I to say what is medically needed for someone or limit their ability to get it? Others discussed possible revenue and jobs for our community.”
He acknowledged that, based on what has happened in other states, it is possible that legalizing cannabis for medicinal purposes gets “a foot in the door” for legalizing recreational use. “But if they can drive 50 minutes to (Illinois) and get it, or eventually the next county over, then have we really stopped the use in our community?”
“I feel like I did my due diligence to be educated on it, gather different opinions, but ultimately prayed about it several times, that I could come to a response for Don (Cherry’s) resolution, that I could be comfortable with,” Rister wrote, adding later that he spoke to Cherry this morning. “I told him I was perfectly fine with how the vote came out. Being on the ballot, I am good with.”
Between now and the election, he hopes voters will take some time to educate themselves about medical cannabis as well as what is and is not allowable under the new law.
