Cannabis: The tale of two city ordinances

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

As Minnesota embraces a new era of cannabis legalization, our twin cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul, stand at a crossroads. Each city is working to craft ordinances that will shape the future of cannabis businesses, consumers and residents. Yet, the paths they are taking could not be more different. St. Paul is fostering a thriving cannabis market, while Minneapolis risks stifling it under the weight of excessive regulation.

St. Paul has taken a bold, inclusive approach. The City Council has unanimously approved new rules that will open 90% of the city’s current retail space to cannabis shops (which are usually called “dispensaries”). Outside of downtown, dispensaries will be kept 300 feet away from schools, striking a balance between safety and accessibility. By choosing not to enact the maximum buffer zones permitted under state law, St. Paul ensures that only 10% of current retail space is off-limits to cannabis businesses. The ordinance also allows “microbusinesses” — the marijuana equivalent of a microbrewery, with both cultivation and sales in one small business — along commercial corridors. This decision not only encourages entrepreneurship but also integrates cannabis businesses into the fabric of the community.

In stark contrast, Minneapolis’ early draft of cannabis regulations is restrictive and overly burdensome. Cultivation would be limited only to the city’s heavy industrial neighborhoods, effectively sidelining potential growers. The ordinance mandates that no detectable outdoor odors from grows are allowed — a requirement not explicitly demanded in St. Paul. Additionally, dispensaries must be located within a contiguous commercial or industrial area of at least three acres, further narrowing potential locations. Taking into account the request of the Minneapolis Board of Education, dispensaries must be 300 feet away from schools. These layers of restrictions could render the establishment of cannabis businesses in Minneapolis nearly impossible.

Why does this matter? For businesses, St. Paul’s ordinance provides ample opportunity for growth and success. By opening up 90% of retail spaces to this new industry and allowing microbusinesses to vertically integrate within one location, entrepreneurs have the flexibility to find suitable locations and operate efficiently. This inclusivity fosters competition and convenience for consumers.

Furthermore, residents throughout the city stand to benefit from the economic growth that comes with welcoming a thriving cannabis industry. New businesses mean more jobs, increased tax revenue (including the 2% of cannabis tax that goes to the local government), and revitalized commercial areas. St. Paul’s ordinance recognizes cannabis as a legitimate industry that can contribute positively to the city. In contrast, Minneapolis’ proposed regulations risk driving cannabis businesses to neighboring municipalities, taking jobs and revenue with them.

One of the underlying issues influencing these ordinances is the lingering stigma around cannabis. Let’s not let the outdated, disproven “War on Drugs” mentality guide our decisionmaking. Many Minnesotans have discovered for themselves that they find benefits from the hemp-derived THC beverages legalized in 2022, whether as a substitute for alcoholic beverages or for health effects. Their voices underscore the importance of creating policies that support, rather than hinder, access to safe, regulated cannabis.

The lingering stigma around cannabis causes over-regulation, like Minneapolis’ stringent regulations on odor control for cannabis cultivation. Many businesses emit odors — I have strong memories of the varying smells of the Malt-O-Meal plant where I went to college, for example, and a BBQ restaurant expels odor in the air for blocks around.

In other words, the proposed requirement that no detectable outdoor odors from grows are allowed is a reflection of outdated fears rather than practical concerns. If we can tolerate the enticing aroma of smoked ribs wafting through our streets, why can’t we accept the natural scent of a plant that offers relief and enjoyment to many?

The market envisioned in HF 100 — the 2023 legislation that established a legal and regulated cannabis industry in Minnesota — is one that is inclusive, accessible and beneficial to all Minnesotans. To realize this vision, we must enact favorable city policies that embrace the cannabis industry rather than push it to the margins. St. Paul’s ordinance is a step in the right direction.

Minneapolis has the chance to reconsider its approach. The city can choose to support businesses, provide better access for consumers and contribute positively to the community. It’s time to move past the stigma and recognize cannabis as a legitimate and valuable part of our economy and society.

In this tale of two cities, let us choose the path that leads to growth, inclusivity and progress. Let us support policies that reflect the needs and values of our communities. The future of Minnesota’s cannabis industry depends on it.

Jen Randolph Reise is the head of business and cannabis law at North Star Law Group, a law firm in St. Paul, where she represents cannabis entrepreneurs.