What began as a routine city council meeting transformed into one of the most heated debates of the year at Reading City Hall, as council members deliberated over controversial marijuana legislation that has divided the community.

Reading City Council voted 5-2 on Monday evening to pass groundbreaking legislation that amends the city code to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana — specifically 30 grams or less — replacing the current mandatory summary charge with a citation system involving fines. The narrow victory came after hours of intense public testimony and debate among council members.

City Council President Donna Reed and Councilman Chris Miller cast the dissenting votes, both expressing concerns that the legislation was being rushed through without adequate consideration. They argued for tabling the motion to allow more time for additional questions to be answered and for further community input.

"I think the fact that as elected officials we represent all people, not just the people we agree with," Miller said during the meeting. "Based on the number of people that spoke tonight, I think this needs to be discussed further."

The controversial proposal drew fierce opposition from key law enforcement officials. Prior to the meeting, during the committee of the whole session, District Attorney John Adams and Yvonne Stroman, the community program specialist at the Council on Chemical Abuse, both voiced strong opposition to the bill. They argued that decriminalization could send the wrong message to young people and potentially lead to increased drug use.

However, the legislation also found support from advocacy groups. Joe Welsh from the Lehigh Valley Justice Institute and Chris Goldstein from the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws spoke passionately in favor of decriminalization, citing criminal justice reform benefits and the need to redirect law enforcement resources to more serious crimes.

The proposed bill brought an unusually large number of city residents to the meeting to participate in the public comment portion, with speakers voicing passionate concerns on both sides of the divisive issue. The emotional testimony highlighted the deep community divide over marijuana policy.

Councilwoman Melissa Ventura, one of the bill's supporters, took pains to clarify the distinction between decriminalization and legalization. "Like we stated before, marijuana is still illegal," Ventura emphasized. "We're not encouraging it. We're not saying it's okay. It's still illegal in the state of Pennsylvania."

Prior to passage, council members voted to amend the ordinance to establish stronger financial penalties for citations. Under the new system, first-time offenders will face a $50 fine plus an additional $50 cost to attend a mandatory marijuana diversion program for both youth and adults, which will be offered by the Council on Chemical Abuse. Second offenses will carry a $100 fine, while third or subsequent offenses will result in a $150 penalty. Additionally, smoking marijuana in public places will incur a separate $150 fine.

During the public comment period, Hill Road resident William Vitale spoke in favor of decriminalization, presenting research-based arguments about addiction and drug policy. "Addiction to drugs is almost always an issue of an individual's pre-existing psychological conditions rather than something inherent to marijuana use," Vitale argued. He cited studies from the American Pediatrics Association, stating that "decriminalization led to large decreases in arrests for possession. Seems like an obvious outcome to me, reducing the number of wrecked lives with no increase in cannabis use among young people. So many of our residents, especially our young people, face a myriad of challenges; why not allow them the harmless pleasure of getting high without having to worry about being arrested and worse."

However, the testimony also included heartbreaking personal stories from those opposed to the measure. Bill Murray, the executive director of the Reading Area Water Authority, shared his tragic experience of losing his oldest son to an opioid overdose 20 years ago. "He too thought smoking pot was harmless," Murray told the council, his voice heavy with emotion. "Nothing can prepare you for what it feels like to walk behind the casket holding your child. That moment broke me, and it changed my life forever. Will this legislation truly make life better here, or will it unintentionally enable more harm?"

Resident Francis Morrison offered a different perspective, arguing that opposition to marijuana decriminalization represents a broader issue of civil liberties. "Unless you have experienced the effects of segregation or marijuana, you would have to depend on secondhand information in order to comprehend the cultural memes," Morrison said. He referenced historical context, noting that "during the Nixon administration, under the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, marijuana was added to the list of controlled substances as a schedule one drug alongside heroin and LSD as a means of repressing the antiwar movement and its growing counterculture."

Winston Reyes of North 2nd Street expressed concerns about the potential impact on young people, arguing that the ordinance could send the wrong message. "I believe the ordinance will incentivize young adults to use more marijuana," Reyes said. "We shouldn't take this lightly. Drugs are just not good for our society; it's just got to stop. We open the door for kids to try something else once they get used to the marijuana."

The debate was further informed by testimony from officials in neighboring municipalities that have already implemented similar measures. Two officials from nearby cities urged council to pass the ordinance, sharing their communities' positive experiences with decriminalization.

Easton City Councilman Frank Pintabone described the successful implementation of a similar bill he sponsored, which passed in Easton on June 11. "I met with local elected officials, their police officers, their magistrates, their judges in municipalities that had already decriminalized marijuana, and none of those municipalities have seen an uptick in public consumption," Pintabone reported, providing concrete evidence that decriminalization doesn't necessarily lead to increased public use.

Allentown City Councilwoman Cynthia Mota also spoke in support of the measure, framing it as a matter of social justice. "The decriminalization of marijuana aligns with the principles of justice and equity," Mota said. "By removing criminal penalties associated with marijuana possession, we can redirect valuable law enforcement resources towards more pressing public safety issues."

However, Mota also acknowledged the challenges her city has faced with implementation. Allentown passed a decriminalization ordinance several years ago, but the district attorney refused to allow it to be enforced, highlighting potential legal obstacles that Reading may also encounter.

Interestingly, on Wednesday night, some Allentown council members wanted to revisit their marijuana issue, but the chief of police informed them that state law trumps local law, illustrating the complex legal landscape surrounding municipal marijuana policies.

Reading Managing Director Jack Gombach indicated that now that council has adopted the ordinance, the mayor and police chief can begin working on implementation procedures. The practical aspects of enforcement will need to be worked out between city officials and law enforcement agencies.

Unless Mayor Eddie Moran exercises his veto power, the ordinance is expected to take effect within 10 days of passage. The implementation will mark a significant shift in how Reading handles low-level marijuana offenses, potentially affecting hundreds of residents annually who might otherwise face more serious criminal charges.

The vote reflects a broader trend across Pennsylvania and the nation, as more municipalities grapple with marijuana policy reform while waiting for state and federal governments to address cannabis legalization more comprehensively. Reading joins a growing list of Pennsylvania cities that have chosen to reduce penalties for marijuana possession at the local level.

The passionate debate and close vote demonstrate that marijuana policy remains a deeply divisive issue in Reading, with valid concerns and compelling arguments on both sides. As the city prepares to implement this new policy, officials will be closely monitoring its effects on public safety, youth behavior, and community well-being to assess whether this approach achieves its intended goals of criminal justice reform without unintended consequences.