I read the recent article regarding survey results showing support for marijuana sales in Lewis County.
The article cites responses from roughly 1,000 individuals, which may offer a snapshot of public opinion — but it is a relatively small sample to help inform decisions that would affect the entire county for years to come.
Before moving forward, it is worth asking whether that level of input is sufficient to justify expanding retail access in our communities.
Many responsible adults choose to use cannabis, and that is their right under state law. The question here is not about individual choice, but about whether expanding retail marijuana within our own communities serves our long-term interests.
Washington’s experience since legalization offers important context. State agencies, including the Washington state Department of Health and the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, have reported increases in cannabis-related emergency room visits and ongoing concerns around impaired driving involving THC.
These are not theoretical risks — they are documented challenges that come with broader availability and normalization.
There are also concerns about mental health that deserve careful attention. Research published in major medical journals, including studies referenced by the National Institutes of Health, has found an association between frequent, long-term cannabis use and an increased risk of psychosis, particularly among younger users. Even if that risk does not affect everyone, it should give us pause when considering policies that further normalize and expand access.
Supporters often point to tax revenue as a benefit. But revenue should not be the primary lens through which we make decisions that shape our communities.
Other states and jurisdictions have found that cannabis revenue is accompanied by increased costs — ranging from public health responses to enforcement and education efforts. At a minimum, it raises the question of whether the financial gain is as significant as it first appears.
Recent local decisions around substance-related policies suggest a desire to limit visible impacts on the community. Expanding retail marijuana raises questions about how consistently we are applying that principle.
This is not about judging individuals. It is about asking what kind of community we want to build. When access to marijuana already exists nearby, what problem are we solving by bringing it closer to home?
Access already exists for those who seek it. Expanding retail sales is not about meeting a need — it is about changing the landscape of our communities. That kind of decision deserves more than a limited survey and a promise of revenue; it deserves broad, thoughtful engagement and a clear understanding of the long-term consequences.
Before we move forward, we should be certain that this reflects not just a moment of opinion, but the enduring values and priorities of Lewis County.
Luis Manzo
Napavine
