Outremont bans sale of cannabis
In response to the SQDC’s intention to open a branch on Van Horne in the borough, Outremont has passed a bylaw banning the sale of cannabis completely within its borders.
Apparently residents were concerned that the branch would be near schools and daycares. I’m sure the SQDC had big plans to sell pot to three‑year‑olds.
steph 10:21 on 2022-02-08 Permalink
NIMBY a bit? Can’t the government shut down this by-law?
Kate 10:25 on 2022-02-08 Permalink
Someone would probably have to challenge it, no? I have a feeling the SQDC will simply put a branch just outside the border, as the SAQ has done.
Discussion here a few weeks ago about borough-specific bans.
DeWolf 10:53 on 2022-02-08 Permalink
Outremont’s new mayor is really focused on the big priorities!
There’s still no SQDC in Mile End, or the entire western part of the Plateau, so that seems like the logical choice.
carswell 11:18 on 2022-02-08 Permalink
The SQDC doesn’t open stores in communities that don’t want them. That’s been the rule from the start and there’s no indication of it changing any time soon, especially with the anti-pot CAQistes in power. Provincial legislation imposes a number of restrictions on store locations (tightened under Legault), most notably on the distance between the storefront and nearby “vulnerable” populations (educational institutions, daycare centres, etc.), which can make finding sites in the city a challenge, so nearby alternate locations, including in Mile End, may not be as numerous as you think. Also, the proposed Outremont location was within steps of a metro station; not true for anywhere in Mile-End.
In this morning’s soft-hitting Daybreak interview, mayor Desbois sounded quite open to the idea of an SAQ store in his borough. So, yes, it is a kind of NIMBYism. Outremont and other conservative bourgeois communities that have banned SQDC stores (TMR, VSL, etc.) still adhere to the belief that cannabis is evil and corrupting and that an SQDC store will attract a louche clientele who they want to keep far from their ‘hood.
Uatu 11:50 on 2022-02-08 Permalink
They don’t care because they probably get their pot via home delivery anyway
walkerp 12:06 on 2022-02-08 Permalink
I’m pretty pro-weed, but the wailing and gnashing of teeth over this issue in California is quite ridiculous. One of the cities in the SF Bay Area made the same decision and the pot lobby was freaking out. Talking about “marijuana deserts” and how the community would suffer. Consumer capitalism ruins everything.
I get Outremont’s concern. It starts with a weed store in their quartier and the next thing you know lawns get untended, unwashed cars left outside the garage, where does it end?
DavidH 16:32 on 2022-02-08 Permalink
I live one street over from a SQDC and right next to a park. In terms of littering, the effect of the SQDC is worst than the the McDonalds and the A&W combined. Everything is overpackaged and a lot of people don’t wait to get home to consume. I didn’t mind the SQDC at first, but I’m starting to.
walkerp 17:32 on 2022-02-08 Permalink
Yes DavidH, good point, the packaging at the SQDC is disgusting. Once again, the plastic lobby insinuates itself where it’s not needed, using security and safety fears, to get big government bids. So gross. Thanks for mentioning that.
Go black market people! Better quality and less waste.
carswell 18:37 on 2022-02-08 Permalink
Overpackaging is an acknowledged issue in the Canadian industry. The problem is not driven by the plastics industry but by federal legislation, which encourages/requires it, purportedly for safety reasons (packages must be tamper-proof, child-resistant, odourless, etc.). Secondary packaging (cardboard boxes housing the actual container, for example) will soon be eliminated and producers should be moving toward smaller, more easily recyclable, even glass and metal containers. All containers will still be opaque, hermetically sealed and soberly labelled though, at least until federal law changes..