Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Social Equity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council pauses U-M social-equity cannabis study pending funding and legal clarifications
Summary
A proposed $170,000, two-year study by University of Michigan public-health researchers on social equity in Detroit’s cannabis industry was discussed; council asked for health-related questions to be included and sought clarity on $3M excise funds before approving city-funded contracting.
Council members pressed the Office of Cannabis Affairs and University of Michigan researchers for clarifications before approving a $170,000, two-year contract to study social equity in Detroit’s cannabis industry.
Kim James (Office of Cannabis Affairs) told the committee the study focuses on business impacts and barriers for locally owned cannabis businesses. Professor Catherine Hendy of U‑M’s School of Public Health said the project’s design centers on policy and business analysis rather than a broad public-health impact evaluation, but that health concerns would be included as part of stakeholder discussions and that the study can identify questions a future health-specific study should answer. "The scope of this project is really narrow because it is looking at the question of how we create social equity in the business industry around cannabis," Hendy said.
Member Scott Benson and others pressed whether health outcomes—impacts on youth, addiction, or other population health measures—should be examined. James said the city’s Office of Cannabis Affairs has run public-health education campaigns and coordinated with the health department and Detroit Public Schools on safe-storage and youth prevention efforts, but acknowledged that comprehensive local health-impact research would be separate and likely require additional funds and a different study design.
Council also questioned whether the contract should be charged to cannabis excise funds (the $3 million pot discussed) rather than general city funding. James said she expected another $3 million installment soon and that the allocation mechanics require coordination with law and finance; the committee asked the law department for a written legal opinion and asked for the U‑M materials to be shared with council leadership. The committee voted to bring the item back in two weeks pending those clarifications.
Next steps: LPD and the Law Department will provide legal guidance on use of excise funds, the Office of Cannabis Affairs will attempt to share the legal opinion it previously sent to council leadership, and the U‑M team will be asked to include a short set of public-health questions that could inform future research.
