Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Smoke Shop Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Attorney and residents urge stronger enforcement and wider moratorium on smoke shops

5772337 · September 17, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Public comment urged the committee to strengthen enforcement against smoke shops selling counterfeit or dangerous products and to consider a citywide moratorium; the committee placed the related motion on the consent calendar, which passed.

During public comment at the Sept. 16 Government Operations Committee meeting, an attorney for Catalyst Cannabis Co. and several residents urged stronger enforcement of smoke shops and called for a citywide moratorium on new smoke shops near sensitive uses. The issue is significant to residents and some business owners who said smoke shops sell illegal or counterfeit products and operate near schools. Damien Martin, cofounder and attorney for Catalyst Cannabis Co., told the committee the "smoke shop situation in the city is completely out of control" and cited an alert from the county public health department that the county medical examiner had linked three deaths to synthesized kratom purchased at smoke shops. Martin supported enforcement motions already submitted by council members and said a moratorium limited to one district should be made citywide. He also suggested increasing inspection resources within the Department of Cannabis Control, noting the department—s annual budget at the time is about $20,000,000 and proposing a larger share be used for inspections. Martin said smoke shops line routes near schools and that some properties sold products in plain view of students. The committee took the related item on consent (item 6 was included in the consent roll that passed) and approved it as presented. Other public commenters during the meeting spoke in support of a separate agenda item (item 7) and described the employer-applicant as providing jobs and stable employment; those speakers emphasized character and local hiring but did not change the committee—s decision on the cannabis license appeal. No new enforcement plan with funding levels was adopted during the meeting; committee action on related items proceeded on consent.