Enfield Republicans force ban on cannabis sales in town
After hearing from 30 residents, most of whom were against the proposal banning cannabis sales in town, the Enfield Town Council voted 6-3, along party lines, in favor of the ban.
Residents pointed to potential tax revenue, medical use of marijuana, and other benefits.
“By doing this, you’re only going to hurt Enfield,” said resident Bob Tkacz. “[This industry] will be $30 billion by the end of this year. By 2030, it will be bigger than tobacco and alcohol, combined. Also, prohibition does not work. You see from the 1920s and 30s, how much crime was committed and how much alcohol was consumed.”
Councilman Carl Sferrazza said that researching the matter on the internet, he found no answers, because both sides are supported by multiple sources. Instead, Sferrazza said, he relied on his life’s experience, including his time as Enfield’s Police Chief, and that a lack of law enforcement’s ability to detect whether a driver has been using marijuana was another factor in his decision.
“I have a real issue that it’s against the federal law,” Sferrazza said. “Maybe that’s going to change, but it isn’t today. My oath as a police officer was to keep people safe. It’s illegal to drive high, but what does that mean to police? We have no way to do it [test drivers]. To me, that’s a public safety issue.”
“It is disappointing that the state passed the bill,” said councilwoman Kelly Hemmeler. “I believe that the acceptance of recreational marijuana... sends the wrong message to children.”
Councilwoman Lori Unghire said that she was concerned about marijuana use in the town, saying that it changes messaging to young people.
“I don’t believe this is a message that we need to send to our young people,” Unghire said.
“This is not about giving drugs to our children,” said Democratic councilwoman Cynthia Mangini. “This is about commercial business and generating revenue for our town.”
Gina Cekala, a Democratic council member, said she has spoken to many people over the last several months, and is an advocate for youth in the town, and took offense to the banning.
“This is not about the debate on the legalization of marijuana,” Cekala said. “This is about the sale and the ability to have these thing in Enfield. I don’t honestly think it’s going to have much effect at all that is going to be used or distributed in this town.”
Cekala added that the ordinance signals that “Enfield is not open for business,” and that licenses are given by the state, not the town.
“Our town is not going to be inundated,” Cekala said.
Democratic councilman Bob Cresotti said not enough research was done by the council before the vote.
“This has not been well-thought out,” Cresotti said. “I think that this should be tabled. I would like us to be able to really think about that. This cannabis business is a money-making opportunity in this town. It’s going to give the wrong impression to businesses wanting to come to Enfield.”
Several of the residents urged the council to send the matter to referendum, rather than a council vote, and many were still against the idea of turning potential tax dollars away.
“Any leadership with courage would say, ‘Let’s look at this a little bit more, and put it to a referendum,” said Jeffrey Scott, a Connecticut Avenue resident. “One way or another, it will be a referendum.”
“I’m pretty ambivalent about cannabis, one way or the other,” said Varno Lane resident Nick Hopkins. “I do care very passionately about fiscal responsibility and personal freedom, and I think this ordinance really cuts against both of those. We’re going to lose money over this. People are going to go other places if they want to consume. At the end of the day, if you folks do not make the right decision, I think there will be an opportunity for the voters to fix that in November.”
“We should not be engaging in any industry-specific prohibition. It’s just not good business, it’s not a good strategy for Enfield,” said Gordon Lane resident Matt Despard.
For more information, visit www.enfield-ct.gov.
