Moorhead Paraphernalia Ban Reverts Back to “Table Talk”

By Paul Hankel
Contributing Writer

On Monday, Aug. 8th, City Council members decided to table the proposed paraphernalia ban instead of passing it. To be honest, I haven’t seen such a complete 180 since I watched snowboarding during the X Games. What appeared to be a “done deal” in many people’s eyes, the ban was set to have its second reading to be voted on. In a surprising move, however, City Council Member Mark Altenburg proposed tabling the ban, citing his wish for local smoke shop owners, city officials and law enforcement to “come to the table and talk.” He was seconded by City Council Member Diane Wray Williams of the 2nd Ward. This followed a 4-4 split vote between Council Members as to whether or not to pass the ordinance. This prompted Mayor Mark Voxland to weigh in and his deciding vote led to the decision to table the proposed ban.

This decision was a far cry from last month’s meeting in which the vote was 6 to 1 to approve a second reading and it was apparent that there were many deciding factors which led to the shelving of the proposed ban. The first noticeable factor was the element of time. The original proposal of the ban came on the heels of the recent raid which took place at Pyromaniacs.

Although Chief Ebinger claimed that he had been working on the ordinance for over a year, it has become apparent that the recent raid and subsequent outcry from anti-smoke shop residents fueled the move to enact the ban.

Immediately following the raid, City Officials were bombarded with calls and letters from Moorhead city residents who were calling for the removal of not only Pyromaniacs, but of all the head shops. This prompted local law enforcement, namely Chief David Ebinger, and city officials to take action. This move began a whirlwind month in which a proposal was drafted by the Moorhead City Attorney’s office, drafted and read to the Moorhead City Council. 

The timing of the bill, according to Chief Ebinger, was speedy in order to enact it “in time for the school year.” During the school year Moorhead is the home of roughly 8,500 college students and Chief Ebinger wanted the proposed ban in place close their arrival at the end of August. The hasty nature of quickly passing the bill was a concern for supporters of the local shops and some of the City Council members as well. Council Member Diane Wray Williams, who informed the council that she had recently toured several of the smoke shops, asked Chief Ebinger and Assistant City Attorney Matt Greenley whether or not the Moorhead Business Association or the Moorhead Economic Development Authority had been contacted in regards to the passing of the ordinance and its effects on the local economy. Chief Ebinger responded that he “didn’t believe so.”

Time was also an element of concern for the local shops. One of the supporters stated that “some of these shops have, literally, hundreds of thousands of dollars of product on their shelves. Thirty or thirty five days just isn’t enough time to remove that stuff.”

The second factor involved in the City’s decision to table the proposed ban was the effect that passing the ordinance would have on the five smoke shops located in Moorhead. Discontent owner Tom Tepley was again in attendance and spoke to the fact that this proposal was already costing him thousands of dollars in legal fees due to the fact that he flew his lawyer up for the first reading of the ban, not to mention the effect that passing it would have on his local shops and employees. He stated that he is more than willing to “sit down and talk with them [city officials and law enforcement] as long as they are reasonable.” It was made apparent by Tepley and several smoke shop employees who spoke that banning the sale of now legal paraphernalia would not only take away valuable business from downtown Moorhead, but would also most likely cost them their jobs.

The third, and possibly the most glaring factor involved, was the amount of money that the city of Moorhead would potentially lose from passing the ordinance. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue would, eventually, be forfeited due to the fact that, according to smoke shop owners and employees, not being able to sell smoking accessories and products would lead to them being forced to shut down. City officials were also concerned that most, if not all, of the costs associated with convicting someone caught with paraphernalia or smoke shops caught selling paraphernalia would have to be paid by the city. There was also concern about the inevitable cost to the city from lawsuits regarding the ban.

Also brought up from the first reading was the actual wording of the ordinance and the burden of proof that would fall upon the prosecution when trying to convict someone caught with paraphernalia. It was pointed out that if someone were caught with a new piece of paraphernalia, without illegal drug residue, prosecution would be hard pressed to prove that that paraphernalia was going to be used to ingest illegal substances. It would appear that the courts would assume that the intent of the possessor was to ingest illegal substances such as marijuana, crack, methamphetamine, or other illegal drugs. Those opposed to the ban felt like they were having their freedom of choice violated.

“It’s up to us, the purchasers, to decide what we want to ingest in our bodies. They’re our bodies,” stated a Moorhead resident. “These [smoke] shops sell a product that is totally legal. It’s sold to smoke tobacco out of. If someone wants to smoke something else out of it, then it should be their free choice to do so, consequences or not. “

Although the majority of those present were against the passing of the ordinance, there were several Moorhead residents, including a couple who lives across the street from Pyromaniacs, that were in support of it. The supporters cited the fact that local businesses are unwilling to move into a neighborhood where smoke shops are present and that their presence invites “undesirables” to the area. “We see it every day,” said one resident. “I shouldn’t have to worry about taking my grandchildren to the park and worry about what they might see on the way there.”

It appears that, when given some time to reflect upon the various implications that would result from passing the ordinance, some City Council members who were initially enthusiastic about supporting the ban are now back pedaling. Those council members in support of the ban seemed resolved to support Chief Ebinger and his officers and to “give them the tools that they need to do their job.”

The loss of jobs, tax revenue, and potentially five local businesses, including one that has been around for 35 years, are factors that are not lost upon the council. Mayor Voxland elected to table the ban and extend discussion in an effort to let law enforcement and smoke shop owners meet and discuss possible alternatives to the ban before considering the ordinance’s passing. He stated that he doesn’t believe that he would like to see a timely decision. The talks are to take place within the next month or so with a decision coming at the latest in November.

Readers who want to voice their opinions or inquire about specifics on the subsequent discussions and meetings regarding the proposed ban are encouraged to contact the City of Moorhead offices or individual City Council Members at (218) 299-5166. City Council members can be reached by their individual emails which can be found on the City of Moorhead website.

The City of Moorhead can also be contacted by letter at PO Box 779 Moorhead, MN 56561 or by email at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Readers can also attend any of the City Council meetings. The next meeting is scheduled for Aug. 22, 2011. The meetings take place every other week on Mondays at 500 Center Avenue inside the Moorhead Center Mall and begin at 5:30pm.

Questions and comments: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)