by Jarret Liotta

WESTPORT — Last week the Planning & Zoning Commission had an introductory conversation about the new state law approving recreational marijuana.

After watching those proceedings, however, I remain skeptical as to who should rightly make decisions about whether Westport offers retail stores or not, and who exactly should lead this discussion.

Things have drastically changed from that day in 1982 when I was chased and detained by police behind the Levitt Pavilion for smoking pot … And from those halcyon 1980s evenings — on Jesup Green, in nearby Needle Park, and inside several buildings within view of Main Street that I won’t name — where pot was dealt by a stealthy collection of long-haired cannabis peddlers wearing Rush or Led Zeppelin t-shirts …

I no longer imbibe — nor sincerely care one way or the other if it’s sold in town — but I’m astounded by the monumental legal changes regarding cannabis.

The real question for Westport, however, is whether cultural and social changes are lagging behind the laws being made.

At its July 22 meeting the P&Z heard an overview from attorney Nick Bamonte on its options with regard to even allowing recreational pot sellers to set up shop in Westport — what would be a limited number, according to state statute.

P&Z options range from establishing guidelines, like store hours and locations, to the outright banning of any stores — Prohibition — through zoning regulations.

Another option, however, is to bring the question before the residents themselves in the form of a referendum vote — something Wilton, which did not even allow liquor stores until 2010 — is seriously considering following discussion at that town’s Board of Selectmen meeting last month.

It was somewhat odd — some might say even a little disturbing — to hear Mary Young, Westport’s planning director, subtly advocate for the creation of a zoning regulation to address the matter, rather than trouble over a town-wide vote, as she said it would create a lot of extra work for the town clerk.

She acknowledged that as a paid employee she didn’t have a vote in the matter, but said “panic” had touched on that office because of concerns that it might demand additional work to prepare by Election Day.

(I actually hold the staff at the town clerk’s office in very high regard — and would not intentionally want to create more work for any of them — but I’m not sure that would be the right reason not to do it.)

“I think that’s a more complicated option,” Young said of a referendum vote.

“I think a regulation or an ordinance is probably more effective from a practical and legal standpoint,” Bamonte agreed, though it’s important to note that this could ultimately be done in tandem with a referendum.

One thing to consider is that, according to Chair Danielle Dobin, outright bans have already been proposed in Weston, Darien, New Canaan, Ridgefield and Greenwich.

“If we were to be the only recreational sales dispensary in the area, I know that would be a major traffic event, versus if everybody around us is allowing it,” she said.

Dobin said the economic incentives — which include a portion of the sales tax that is earmarked through the state for a range of social-service spending in each participating municipality — are “tremendous” and will motivate financially challenged towns and cities to welcome retailers.

There’s no word on what Norwalk, Fairfield and Bridgeport will decide, but given the tax incentives, it’s probable the cities at least will welcome stores, thus making it much less likely people would flock to Westport for their bud.

Who’s to say Westport, which would potentially have limited draw for surrounding consumers, couldn’t then create some interesting opportunities for higher-end retail experiences that reflect our town’s commercial traditions?! Perhaps there’s opportunity here from a commerce standpoint.

“If we do shut the door and lay out our feelings that this is the wrong municipality for this activity, are we gonna run afoul?” asked P&Z member Paul Lebowitz, gingerly broaching another question reflective of accusations made against Westport in relation to the affordable housing battle, which center on real or perceived shades of overt or systemic racism.

“Who’s buying, who’s allowed to buy, and race, color and creed are all part of that, so I want to know if we open ourselves up to any kind of problem, let’s put it that way,” he said, should the town ban the stores.

In the end, whatever the fear-based preconceptions — or prudent apprehensions — are in advocating for prohibition, from a cultural and social standpoint I think an open-minded community — as Westport purports to be — would do right to simply not put on Puritanical hats and imagine the worst possible scenarios.

Personally, I actually have issues with degrees of cannabis consumption — as I likewise do with some alcohol consumption — especially where driving is concerned, let alone childcare and other activities demanding sober attention. Pot is hallucinogenic, plain and simple. More importantly, for some it’s addictive, plain and simple, and can have far-reaching consequences relating to mental health.

Yet, with a dozen or so liquor stores welcome in our town — and some of the extreme drinkers who frequent them regularly driving our roads under the influence — I think it’s ridiculous to prohibit a pot store or two.

This seems like a double standard that, based on the social and cultural changes of our time, we really should just put behind us …

But that’s MY opinion!

A far-reaching decision like this, as observed by officials in Wilton, is perhaps best and more fairly left to the electorate — the entire town — to decide.

Even if it’s a little inconvenient — even if it requires a bit of education, contemplation, and perhaps even demonstration — it just feels right to me to put it before the people.  

That’s what I think … but then, of course, I was all high when I wrote this! (Nah, just kidding! 😉