Community members express opposition to Bemidji entering into municipal cannabis business

BEMIDJI — In a remarkably short meeting on Monday evening, the Bemidji City Council heard from several community members who expressed they would not be supportive of the city owning and operating a municipal cannabis business.

The council held a special listening session on the topic, which comes after adult recreational marijuana use became legal in Minnesota on Aug. 1. A part of this state-wide decision gave cities the opportunity to apply for their own cannabis retail license to operate a municipal business selling marijuana-based products.

While the process to apply for a license has not yet been set up by the state, which anticipates the first retail cannabis establishments opening in 2025, the Bemidji City Council has set out to determine the public’s interest in this possibility early.

Only a handful of community members shared comments at Monday’s listening session, with two voicing their opinion through email and one via video call, with the overall theme being an opposition to the idea of the city operating a recreational cannabis business.

Christopher Murray, who also spoke at a public hearing on Aug. 21 on whether the city should restrict the use of cannabis products in public, shared his thoughts.

“I believe the city should avoid going into the cannabis business directly,” Murray said. “I don’t think competing with potential entrepreneurs makes sense in this space.”

Murray expanded on his comments by explaining he believes it is too early to make the decision, particularly since the process to begin a municipal cannabis business is still being developed by the state.

“I think the decision is very premature on whether or not to enter the marketplace as a municipal retailer without knowing what exactly the licensing structure is,” Murray said.

While at this point Murray said he is unwilling to support the city entering the retail cannabis space, he did say that this could change as more information about the regulations and process becomes available.

“If regulation develops that might advantage the city getting involved, (my opinion) could eventually change,” Murray shared.

One of the comments provided by email also shared the author’s opposition to the city owning a municipal cannabis store.

The other did not specify an opinion on municipal cannabis sales but asked that the city reconsider adopting an ordinance that prohibits public use, which was dropped by the council during its Aug. 21 meeting in a 4-3 vote prior to its second reading.

Once all comments had been heard, the council adjourned its meeting, which lasted less than 10 minutes. Because the meeting was called for a listening session, no further discussion was had by the council.