The potential for cannabis dispensaries on First Street went up in smoke for the time being at Tuesday’s City Council meeting, as the board voted 4-0 to prohibit such dispensaries downtown. However, the debate over other potential locations will continue at a future meeting.

Cannabis has been a hot button issue in several communities ever since California voters approved the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, also known as Proposition 64, in 2016. It has dominated Benicia City Council meetings all year, as the city has tried to determine the answers to such questions as “Should dispensaries be allowed, and if so, where?”, “Should personal cultivation be allowed?”, and “Should cannabis deliveries be allowed?” before the state can start issuing cannabis-related licenses on Jan. 1.

The debate was split into two parts on the agenda: Item 15A dealt with prohibiting cannabis dispensaries downtown, and 15B dealt with the remaining questions. The reason to split the items stemmed largely from a decision by the Fair Political Practices Commission for Councilmember Alan Schwartzman to recuse himself from the downtown debate. He, Mayor Elizabeth Patterson and Councilmember Tom Campbell were considered to have potential conflicts of interest due to them owning property in or near the downtown area. However, only Schwartzman was determined to have a conflict dependent on financial interests. He will still be able to vote on the other cannabis-related items.

With such a hotly debated issue, both sides packed the Council Chambers to the point where some had to view the meeting from monitors set up in other rooms. Although proponents of downtown dispensaries made their case during the public comment portion, the majority of public speakers were opposed to the idea. These included business owners, Benicia Unified School District educators and administrators, and members of Benicia High School’s Friday Night Live club.

Peter Morgan, a BUSD Governing Board trustee, opposed the ordinance because he considered First Street to be the symbol of Benicia. He also felt it was not imperative for the city to decide on the issue right away.

“It sends the wrong message at the wrong time,” he said. “I don’t understand the urgency in allowing commercial distribution on First Street in particular. We can be a fast follower. We don’t have to be at the bleeding edge and sacrifice others, when we can learn from others’ mistakes. There’s time to make these decisions.”

Toni Haughey, a member of the Historic Preservation Review Commission, did not feel that having a dispensary on First Street would be good for surrounding businesses.

“The people I know in town who are getting pot from dealers in town, they’re not gonna come downtown,” she said. “They’re laughing about this. Their attitude is, ‘No one’s gonna come to some store downtown, and then I’m gonna shop. They say it’s kind of like when you go get a six-pack of beer, you don’t go to Romancing the Home after it. It’s not gonna help your retail at all. In fact, it’s gonna probably hurt it because it still has a negative connotation.”

Ted Criado, the president of the Benicia Police Officers Association, expressed concerns about safety and the cost to the Police Department’s budget.

“Even if cannabis is good for the tax base here in Benicia, it’s not worth the likely harm to our youth and our families,” he said.

Among the proponents who addressed the crowd were Rebecca and Timothy Byars, the founders of Concord canabusiness The Agathist Collective. Timothy called the city’s tendency to shun cannabusinesses while lining First Street with bars and restaurants that serve alcohol “the height of hypocrisy” and felt a well-designed dispensary would be beneficial for Benicia.

“If I were a business person with a storefront in Benicia, I would be begging for a clean, well-lit, professional cannabis shop to move in,” he said. “The cannabis industry is an economic force in California. Similar to the California wine industry, it will be one the most important factors for bringing tourists into downtown areas.”

Likewise, resident Craig Snider felt downtown dispensaries would boost the local economy and even suggested opening two dispensaries to increase competition. He also said the decision should be made sooner rather than later.

“We should take advantage of this moment to establish dispensaries here to take advantage of that market,” he said. “Time is of the essence, so some of these suggestions for additional studies and putting it off to the future, I don’t think that’s to our advantage in this new world we live in.”

Other proponents, such as Janet Wolf, discussed how they used medical cannabis to treat health issues. Wolf became disabled due to chronic conditions and used medical cannabis as a remedy. One of the businesses she utilized was the Agathist Collective, but the Concord City Council voted to ban all cannabis in the city unless delivered from elsewhere.

“If every Bay Area city votes for a total ban, as seems to be the trend, people like me will have to travel further and further to find relief for my pain,” she said, “This in spite of California voters overwhelmingly speaking out in favor of medical and recreational cannabis use.”

Councilmembers Campbell and Mark Hughes had previously voted against the possibility of dispensaries being located on First Street, and they upheld their votes at Tuesday’s meeting. Patterson and Vice Mayor Steve Young had previously voted in favor of the idea but changed their votes Tuesday, making the decision unanimous. For Patterson, it was not because she believed everything that was expressed that evening, but because of the current perceptions of cannabis, she felt it was not the right time to allow downtown dispensaries.

“While I don’t agree with the fears, I certainly agree with the sense of community,” she said.

Young said his opinion evolved after talking to people.

“I do recognize that First Street is different,” he said. “First Street does represent the heart of the community. While I would like to be able to talk about dispensaries off of First Street, that’s not what’s in front of us.”

The council will next meet Tuesday, Dec. 19.