Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Marijuana Dispensaries topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Perrysburg holds second readings on three marijuana ordinances; residents and council raise access and youth-safety concerns
Summary
Council advanced second readings of three ordinances that would define and regulate marijuana and dispensaries. Public speakers urged access for medical patients while several council members and teachers voiced concerns about youth exposure and high-THC products. Council scheduled a third reading at the next meeting.
PERRYSBURG, Ohio — Perrysburg City Council held second readings on three ordinances (Ordinances 9, 10 and 11, 2025) on Feb. 18 that would set local definitions and rules for marijuana dispensaries and related land-use regulation. The ordinances were read by number and title and advanced to a second reading for public comment and further consideration.
Public comment included testimony from Ken Jones, a Perrysburg resident who said he moved to the area for access to medical cannabis after multiple sclerosis and a spinal-cord injury. Jones told council that local access matters for patients who have mobility challenges and that traveling to other cities for medicine can be prohibitive.
High-school teacher Heather Hogreif said she supports protections for students and warned that permitting dispensaries in town could send a mixed message to teens: “Kids are smart. They look around. They see what adults are doing,” she said, urging the council to consider the message that a dispensary in town would convey.
Several council members expressed similar concerns about youth access and the high potency of current THC products. One council member urged patience and additional data, noting that nearby communities are only beginning to permit dispensaries and suggesting Perrysburg could wait and observe. Another council member said the city has a role in avoiding “arbitrary regulation” and referenced the state-level adult-use legalization vote as a complicating factor.
Council received emails both supporting and opposing dispensaries; the clerk reported receiving only one pro-dispensary email and several opposing emails. The ordinances were read for a second time; council scheduled the third reading and final vote for the next council meeting to allow more time for public input and for staff to provide additional information.
Formal action at the Feb. 18 meeting consisted of suspending rules to allow the second readings by number and title only. No ordinance was adopted or rejected at this meeting.
