Community-level policy responses to state marijuana legalization in Washington State

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.02.010Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

Washington State (WA) legalized a recreational marijuana market – including growing, processing and retail sales – through voter initiative 502 in November 2012. Legalized recreational marijuana retail sales began in July 2014.

In response to state legalization of recreational marijuana, some cities and counties within the state have passed local ordinances that either further regulated marijuana markets, or banned them completely.

The purpose of this study is to describe local-level marijuana regulations on recreational retail sales within the context of a state that had legalized a recreational marijuana market.

Methods

Marijuana-related ordinances were collected from all 142 cities in the state with more than 3000 residents and from all 39 counties. Policies that were in place as of June 30, 2016 – two years after the state’s recreational market opening – to regulate recreational marijuana retail sales within communities were systematically coded.

Results

A total of 125 cities and 30 counties had passed local ordinances to address recreational marijuana retail sales. Multiple communities implemented retail market bans, including some temporary bans (moratoria) while studying whether to pursue other policy options. As of June 30, 2016, 30% of the state population lived in places that had temporarily or permanently banned retail sales. Communities most frequently enacted zoning policies explicitly regulating where marijuana businesses could be established. Other policies included in ordinances placed limits on business hours and distance requirements (buffers) between marijuana businesses and youth-related land use types or other sensitive areas.

Conclusions

State legalization does not necessarily result in uniform community environments that regulate recreational marijuana markets. Local ordinances vary among communities within Washington following statewide legalization. Further study is needed to describe how such local policies affect variation in public health and social outcomes.

Section snippets

Background

Washington State was one of the first two states in the United States (U.S.) to legalize a retail non-medical (also called “recreational”) marijuana market, including growing, processing and sales, and decriminalization of individual possession of small amounts of product, through voter initiative 502 (I-502) in November 2012. Possession or use by individuals under age 21, or by adults in amounts greater than specified by the law, driving under the influence of marijuana, home growing for

Methods

A framework for assessing the content of local ordinances (“policy surveillance”) was developed based on an initial marijuana policy coding project that was funded in Washington State by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Public Health Law Research Program (informed by public health interventions for alcohol and tobacco), review of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism’s Alcohol Policy Information System (NIAAA APIS, 2016), and based on knowledge of ordinances passed or under

Results

A total of 125 cities and 30 counties had passed ordinances that addressed marijuana. A summary of the numbers of policies in effect on June 30, 2016, by city or county entity, and the estimated percent of the total population covered by each policy are presented in Table 2. None of the county policies identified in our study during this period were passed with powers of public health authority; all county policies reported in this study were related to land use and business licensing and

Discussion

Most communities in Washington State have acted to regulate recreational marijuana retail sales by municipal or county ordinance following statewide legalization, resulting in a relatively diverse set of policies at the community level within the state. Only 17 cities in our study and 9 counties, encompassing 4% of the population, did not take some form of local policy action.

Continued shifts and developments in state regulatory systems and state law may have influenced local governments to

Conclusions

Two years after the opening of a “legalized marijuana market” in Washington State, community-level regulations on recreational marijuana retail sales vary substantially. About one-third of the state’s residents live in communities where recreational marijuana sales are prohibited, and most communities that allow sales have implemented some restrictions on operations. Further study is needed to understand how such local policies affect variation in public health and social outcomes.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Project #1R01DA039293-01A1. Study tools were originally developed by a project funded by Public Health Law Research, a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References (9)

  • B. Ferguson

    Whether statewide initiative establishing system for licensing marijuana producers, processors, and retailers preempts local ordinances

    (2014)
  • E. Heffter

    Seattle’s new city attorney to dismiss cases of pot possession

    (2010)
  • J. Liu

    Cannabis delivery bill in Washington State

    (2016)
  • Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC). (2016). http://mrsc.org/Home.aspx (Accessed 13 July...
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (55)

  • U.S. State approaches to cannabis licensing

    2022, International Journal of Drug Policy
    Citation Excerpt :

    A similar inefficient allocation effect could arise from differences in local taxation. Relatedly, local ordinance passed in some states creates intra-state licensing heterogeneity, as municipalities opt-out of hosting licensed businesses (Dilley et al., 2017). This can make licensing more restrictive than the state-level picture suggests: for example, in California local-level opt-outs have been blamed for a persistent illicit market (Nieves, 2021), which carries negative implications for public health (Unger et al., 2020).

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text