Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee to ask city attorneys to compare municipal drug‑paraphernalia code with state law before repealing
Summary
Staff recommended repealing duplicative portions of municipal code section 5.212 and deferring enforcement to ORS 475.525; the committee asked legal staff to compare section 5.212 with state statute, identify subsections to keep or repeal (notably the visibility/display provision), and return with recommendations.
City staff told the Public Administration Committee that municipal code section 5.212 on drug paraphernalia largely restates the state statute and recommended repeal of duplicated language.
"This is just a restatement of state law," Brian, the city presenter, said, adding that "our police officers have the ability to enforce state law, it just feels like it's unnecessary to retain this section of code in our municipal code." Staff identified ORS 475.525 as the controlling state statute and attached the statutory language for committee review.
Committee members pressed on the scope of section 5.212, particularly subsection 1, which prohibits the display of paraphernalia so it is visible or accessible to the public. One member noted that subsection 1 appears not to be covered by ORS 475.525 and could be a local provision the city wishes to retain. "Section one is really talking about having it be visible to the public," Brian said, and staff agreed to mark which local provisions are not addressed by state law.
Members expressed concern about preemption and whether state law would bar local, more restrictive language. One councilor asked staff to check for preemptive language in state statutes before moving forward. The committee also cited local retail practice—displayed cases at a smoke shop—as an example of what subsection 1 would regulate if retained.
A councilor raised public-health concerns related to Kratom: "I've recently heard of a person who got hooked on that stuff. They almost died," the member said, urging a reevaluation of enforcement priorities. Staff and members agreed that the immediate direction should be a legal comparative analysis that highlights (a) sections covered by ORS 475.525 for repeal and (b) local provisions to keep or consider modifying; attorneys will return with recommendations at the next committee meeting.
Next steps: city attorneys will perform a side‑by‑side comparison between ORS 475.525 and municipal code 5.212, flag subsections that are covered by state law and identify those the city may wish to retain or tighten; the committee will review the refined proposal at the next meeting.
