Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Highland Park council to reject cannabis license renewal; council says shop’s teen‑center toy drive was store‑initiated
Summary
Several residents urged the council not to renew a cannabis business license for Anja Life LLC (recorded as item 12/24‑276), citing concerns about THC potency, marketing to teens and community exposure; the council said the toy‑drive partnership was an initiative by the retailer, not the borough.
During the public comment period at the Highland Park Borough Council meeting, multiple residents urged council members to reject the renewal of a business license for a local cannabis retailer (recorded in the meeting as item 12/24‑276). Commenters said modern cannabis products carry higher THC levels and expressed concern about teen exposure and local promotional ties to youth programs.
Eric Buzio, identifying himself as a Highland Park resident, told the council: "The THC in today's marijuana is much more potent and dangerous than it ever was in the 1970s. I ask that council members please vote no for [item referenced in the record]." He and other speakers said they found it inappropriate that a retailer was promoting a toy drive in connection with the borough teen center, arguing that donations and wrapping should take place at the teen center or community center rather than at a retail shop.
Colleen Tyler (142 North Sixth Avenue) also addressed the council, referencing the retailer's online mission statement and social posts that promoted a joint holiday toy‑drive. Tyler said the partnership "comes off as a marketing ploy" and urged the council to "please reconsider" permitting retail ties with youth programs.
Council members responded in the meeting record by saying the teen‑center partnership was initiated by the retailer and not by the borough: "That was their initiative," a councilmember said, and council thanked residents for raising concerns. The council did not take an immediate vote on the license renewal during the public‑comment exchange recorded in the transcript.
Speakers cited statistics and third‑party claims about adolescent addiction risk and marketing tactics; those materials were presented as part of public testimony and not as council findings. The transcript also records a resident mentioning that an active lawsuit exists on the issue and providing an email address for follow‑up.
The council preserved the record of public concern and indicated it would consider the comments alongside the consent‑agenda item for licenses; the transcript does not record a final vote on the specific license renewal during this meeting.
