VIEWPOINT: City’s picky locations about marijuana dispensaries further stigmatize low-income areas

By Jordan Omstead

American newspapers have plenty of material to work with these days. So when one of the biggest newspaper chains south of the border decides to run a story about Ottawa municipal politics, it’s probably a story so daft and absurd as to offer a reprieve from news of a delusional president and government shutdowns.

Exhibit A, direct from the Miami Herald and other U.S. outlets: “Poor neighborhoods shouldn’t have pot stores, this city suggests.”

Guess which city?

On Jan. 22, multiple American news sources reported that City of Ottawa staff had asked the LCBO to avoid putting a legal marijuana dispensary in any neighbourhood “experiencing socio-economic stress.”

In other words, municipal staff don’t think low-income folks should be able to easily smoke up when the drug becomes legal this summer. It’s just the most recent example of bureaucrats infantilizing people living in poverty.

In an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Rideau-Vanier Coun. Mathieu Fleury said putting dispensaries in low-income neighbourhoods would “further stigmatize them.” In fact, what’s stigmatizing is when government seems convinced it knows how low-income folks should spend their money better than those citizens themselves.

The city has not clarified what it means by “socio-economic stress” or which neighbourhoods that might encompass, but it seems likely Centretown will get a dispensary given its commercial significance and population density.

The Ontario Cannabis Retail Corporation, an LCBO subsidiary, will open 40 shops spread across 29 municipalities by July 2018, according to the province. City councillors have suggested that the city might get anywhere between one and four legal dispensaries.

No one is suggesting the top-brass at the LCBO should throw darts at a map to decide on the Ottawa locations. Provincial officials have already said they would prioritize geographic distribution and sites that will help eliminate the black market when they make their decisions.

By the government’s own logic then, failing to open a legal dispensary in particular neighbourhoods would simply mean an illegal, unregulated market would persist. The way of resolving that issue, following this line of thinking, would be to criminalize those neighbourhoods with increased police presence and pot shop raids.

But that, not a government-run dispensary, is what would truly “stigmatize” those communities.

Even from an economics perspective, the city’s recommendation is shortsighted. A legal dispensary in a low-income neighbourhood would provide some well-paid, unionized job opportunities.

It turns out pot shops are responsible for getting property prices high, too.

One study found that properties around a pot shop in Denver saw their values increase by 8.4 per cent after the store opened. While experts aren’t sure whether those numbers will translate to Canada, marijuana dispensaries generally increase foot traffic and reduce crime.

Sounds like a pretty good idea for a neighbourhood experiencing “socio-economic stress”, no?

Ontario landlords have also been pushing the province to ban weed smoking in rental units until they can spell out their own restrictions in tenant agreements. With the province’s already prohibitive pot approach — smoking will be off limits in public spaces — it seems the government is suggesting only people living in a detached home with a mortgage and a public-service income should be able to light up with ease.

All of this simply highlights the inanity of the city’s recommendation about where to locate the city’s pot shops. Municipal planners are treating low-income residents with condescension while denying economically challenged neighbourhoods a potential boost.