Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kennesaw council directs city attorneys to draft ordinance reducing misdemeanor cannabis penalties
Summary
After public comment and a split council discussion about enforceability, Kennesaw council voted to direct legal staff to draft an ordinance to reduce penalties for possession of less than one ounce of cannabis to a fine up to $500 or community service and to include a footnote indicating no jail time; the action directs drafting only, not enactment.
The Kennesaw City Council on July 7 voted to direct city legal staff to draft a proposed ordinance that would reduce misdemeanor penalties for possession of less than one ounce of cannabis to a fine not to exceed $500 or community service and include a footnote specifying no jail time.
Supporters in public comment and on the council argued the change would reduce harms from criminal penalties and racial disparities. Mary Miller, who identified herself as a Legacy Park resident, told the council the city should ‘‘choose fairness, science and equity over punitive practices’’ and cited published studies and ACLU data on arrest disparities. Several residents recounted family experiences and urged removal of jail time for small-quantity possession.
City Attorney Sam cautioned the council that municipalities operate under Georgia’s home-rule framework and must determine whether state law permits altering misdemeanor sentencing set out by the general assembly. He said municipal courts in Kennesaw have not prosecuted misdemeanor marijuana possession cases for at least six years and noted the Georgia Bureau of Investigation will not process samples under one ounce, which affects practical enforceability. Sam said the legal team will examine ‘‘enforceability’’ and ‘‘the practical effect’’ if the council directs drafting.
Council debate divided between members who supported drafting language to reflect current city practices and alternatives such as community service over a long diversion program, and members who said the measure would be overridden by state law and would expend staff and legal resources. After discussion, the mayor called for a vote to direct legal to draft the proposed ordinance; the council approved the motion to proceed. The vote authorized only preparation of a draft ordinance; no ordinance was adopted at the meeting.
Next steps: staff/legal will prepare draft language and return to council for further consideration (including legal review and subsequent hearings) if and when a proposed ordinance is produced.
