I would like to respond to an OBSERVER article headlined, “Marijuana law may be on Sheridan ballot.”

The article discussed a petition passed by Susan Bigler who was “disappointed by the Town Board’s decision to opt out on cannabis.” The article goes on to say that “It’s an exercise in democracy. When there’s an issue that’s big enough to affect people in town, they’d like to have a vote on it … I thought I’d do it as an experiment to see how people in town felt about it and see how many knew what was going on,” Bigler said.

I attended the local Town Board meeting to discuss the decision to opt out of approving cannabis. The meeting was sparsely attended, and since she was not in attendance, she was not aware of the discussion of issues regarding the subject.

If she had attended the meeting, she would have heard concerns about the lack of information from the state as to exactly what the rules and regulations of this approval would entail. The initial question raised was to clarify that if a municipality “opts in” they could not “opt out.” However, if a municipality “opts out” the municipality could “opt in” at any time. This was found to be the case.

Further discussion revealed that rules and regulations along with licensing process are being developed.

Being developed? If you go to the state cannabis website you will find statements like these which might give you pause: “In the upcoming weeks and through 2022, we anticipate many new events that will affect how quickly this happens and what the requirements will look like to start a marijuana dispensary”

“During this year, we believe more details will come to learn how to open a dispensary in New York, the requirements, dispensary application process, and associated costs. We will be adding these details to this page as new information is announced and when the state will start accepting license applicants.”

Perhaps, as the resident stated, people in the town did not have a clear idea of the issue. However, in our democracy we elect people, in this case the Town Board, to make decisions which will impact the town. After careful consideration, it became clear that to “opt out” will give the board, and town residents, time to review the finished product. When Bigler was passing her petition, did she make clear that all of this is “being developed?” Did she make it clear that once you opt in you cannot opt out — no matter what the finished product looks like? Did she make it clear that this was not a total rejection of the issue just a cautious and responsible response? I doubt it.

To be clear, I believe that cannabis can be useful and beneficial in health care. After suffering from cancer and shingles – I would much prefer this alternative to the mind-numbing drugs prescribed for pain. And as far as recreational use – I grew up in the ’60s so I have seen it all, and there are still many views – both pro and con — on the topic.

We are to believe that this industry will generate revenue as with cigarettes and alcohol – and we will have another “Sin Tax.” The amusing part is that the Seneca Nation has already established multiple dispensaries – and as many locals go there to fill up their gas tanks, they can easily purchase product at a lower cost.

Finally, the fact remains, marijuana is still a drug. How dispensaries are regulated will be very important. What process is established for operations, what are municipality responsibilities, how is product quality determined and many more questions need to be answered. Waiting to see what the final process looks like is not undemocratic.

What is Democratic and responsible is to gather all the information to make an informed choice. That is what the Town Board has done and I thank them for their efforts.

JoAnn Niebel is a Sheridan resident.