“Sault Ste. Marie should welcome private cannabis stores.” Millroy


The new council will get to decide whether Sault Ste. Marie should welcome private cannabis stores within the city or opt out of having them.
To me, it is a no-brainer.
Welcome them.
After all, they will be legal entities. The only difference between these stores and LCBO outlets is that they will be privately operated whereas LCBO outlets are operated by the government.

It was interesting to note the views of the mayoral candidates published by The Sault Star.
Incumbent Christian Provenzano said he believes that if the sale of marijuana is a legal activity, then consumers should have the right to purchase it legally and that right should include the right to purchase it in Sault Ste. Marie, either through privately-operated or government-operated stores.

Challenger Rory Ring, on leave from his position as Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, says he wants the government to launch a full engagement process with all stakeholders and decide after that whether we want to have a cannabis store here.
Challenger  Ted Johnson, who would prefer government-run stores, said he believes Sault Ste. Marie would have no choice but to allow cannabis stores operate because if it doesn’t, other places that do will get all the business. Newcomer Kemal Martinovic said he doesn’t believe any form of cannabis stores should exist, whether government or privately run.

As you can see from my intro to this piece, I see Provenzano and Johnson as having nailed it. The members of this community should not be denied what will be readily available to those in other communities.
I would prefer that the stores be government-operated, as was proposed by the former Liberal government of Kathleen Wynne, but the new provincial government of Doug Ford has decided otherwise and I can live with that.
The government has given communities a one-time shot at opting out of allowing cannabis stores within their boundaries.
I don’t agree with that.
I can’t see why the government would allow communities this option, to in effect allow communities to institute  prohibition. If it is going to be legal to sell Cannabis, so it should be available to all.
I think the present council agrees and I trust the new one will too.

Ward 2 Coun. Susan Myers, claiming that marijuana can be a gateway to more dangerous substances, put forward a resolution earlier this year that would have seen council oppose the establishment of any retail cannabis outlet in the city.
Her resolution was overwhelmingly rejected by council, as well it should have been.
There will always be arguments made against the sale of marijuana, just as they were at one time levelled against the sale of alcohol.
But the fact is that the status quo was not working. People were getting marijuana through the black market, through a criminal element, and were facing criminal charges, which could affect their lives for years to come, for simple possession.
So I fully support the legalization of it.
And I similarly support its sale in this city.
Think about it.
If it is not for sale here, what is going to be the result.
Two things.
Users will either have to purchase their supplies through the black market, which no doubt will continue to thrive in the Sault if there is no legal source, or they will have to travel, probably to Sudbury, to purchase them.

Neither way is a win for anyone.


  1. Allowing stores to sell marijuana in the Sault is a no-brainer. Next month it will be legalized and someone is going to make money from it. If we ban its sale here, people will just go elsewhere to buy it. As for Councilor Myers saying that pot is a gateway drug, this is simply not true. Many people use pot and they don’t start doing meth and crack. I think many pot smokers use it for relief from pain. Others enjoy it as they would a drink, a way to relax. As for driving while stoned, I believe responsible people will not do this. The ones that do are probably the same people who would drive drunk. I don’t believe the sale of marijuana is going to increase usage by much. The people who smoke pot now, buying from dealers. will now have a legal way to enjoy their pot. I can’t see a huge increase in the number of pot smokers just because it is legal and available

  2. I am literally appalled at how many of you even in current times are not thinking straight by choice about such an important PUBLIC ISSUE.

    That is not at all motivated by bashing, trashing, put-down kind of thinking at all.

    There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever at all about that.

  3. Good old Millroy. Always one for common sense. If the local government stops there from being local stores, they are simply saying they prefer criminals over legitimate business. It’s not really a hard concept to grasp.

    • So lets make business people criminals and let them sell the stuff. Whether businesses sell it or not, people are still going to grow their own and sell it or use it.

  4. Making it easier for weak residents to access more with which to harm themselves and others of course is not the right choice.

    It is so obvious to me no matter what all about revenue.

    There is no doubt in my mind regardless of who all or how many fellow humans disagree with me.

  5. The drug dealers will have to learn bookkeeping and business management in order to join civil society. Either that or start dealing different stuff 🙁

  6. The gov’t approved road side testing device will only tell if you have smoked in the last 12 hours,does not measure level of impairment.nor do they have a set rate level of impairment.also the machine is only effective two thirds of the time, and doesnt work in cold weather. Tried it in australia already, not very effective, and this is what they are going to use to test you at roadside. Good luck to everyone.

  7. At one time, as Doug has said, alcohol was illegal, but the government, in it’s wisdom decided that it was going to be made and sold illegally anyway, so they decided to cash in and make it legal. The outcome, alcoholism, ruined families, fetal alcohol syndrome, in which a baby has no choice, drunk driving, deaths from accidents and alcohol poisoning and God knows what else.
    This time it is the same scenario, different product. Mind you some people can handle alcohol as some people will be able to handle cannabis, but there will also be the ones that won’t.
    The result: the move from cannabis to more lethal drugs and addiction, ruined families, fetal drug syndrome, in which a baby has no choice, driving while impaired, deaths from accidents from drug use, and God knows what else. So there you go, different product, same result.

    • It reminds me though not an injested or injected substance the proposal to the Province of casinos behind the guise of “charity” ones. In the amount of researching I have done of the issue here in the Soo, there are more males claiming to not gamble waiting on their partners I mean to finish playing slot machines. There seems to be more males than females at the tables.

      I literally was very surprised that this area had so many that favored the opening of one and that Sudbury during that period of history had a referendum that resulted in NO . I wonder what it would be these days in that part of Ontario.

      The trouble as a result of the casino is not a minor matter at all.

      As for pot stores I am so disappointed that Mr.Millroy would support that choice.

  8. I don’t know why the city would reject one. Encouraging responsible cannabis use, collecting municipal taxes on the store itself, taking business away from dealers who cut their product with gawd knows what. So many people seem to think there is going to be this huge spike in people using pot…the people who want to use pot are using pot already.

  9. Our council should take it one step further and propose “hemp bars” where we can legally smoke and enjoy ourselves.. maybe sit back and enjoy a good game of Magic the Gathering with friends in an outwardly social environment. Have a couple guys in the background playing ukulele’s singing songs of the Bard!

  10. I promote this but I also wont consider this until there is a test roadside to tell if intoxicated or stoned. I myself would benefit from this from chronic pain. I also look as it like alcohol and can kill behind a wheel. There is an epidemic with opioids but also a large majority of people not receiving quality of care and life because of such crisis.

  11. Unfortunately I worry that privatization will move the monopoly from the government to the rich.

    Realistically it makes more sense to allow for sensible application fees and compliance requirements unlike the ones currently being suggested.

    • If your hard looking for some type of relief said fees wont matter much. I wish I could smoke or ingest and be pain free and stress free I wouldn’t be here complaining about fees just grateful for some relief . I think we are forgetting of what this can do for us

    • Shannon Hallam I don’t think you understood my comment. I meant application fees regarding people who want to open private establishments.

      Current application fees being discussed would make it unfeasible for the average person to open a legal private establishment.

      Hopefully as legalization rolls out the government will have a more reasonable approach.

    • Amanda Holmes I dont know just want it here already. Sick of all the talk of it. I dont know what it entails of somebody opening up shop but I do know it would help some for the time being

Comments are closed.