Cannabis regulation was again debated by Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians’ leadership on Aug. 7 as tribal council considered two resolutions — in both instances, council representatives overwhelmingly favored the status quo. Nonetheless, a few questions were raised in the process.
License to grow?
First on the cannabis docket was Resolution 4887, proposed by medicinal marijuana grower James Bradley. The original text called for a “tier-based licensing system for cannabis cultivation businesses within the Qualla 34 Boundary” — in other words, an outlet for growers like Bradley to join the retail market. At the moment, tribal-owned Qualla Enterprises, LLC has a monopoly on sales to the public at the Great Smoky Cannabis Company dispensary, which opened its doors to anyone age 21 and older in September 2024, a year after EBCI voters voted to legalize adult recreational cannabis use.
Last week’s meeting wasn’t the first time Bradley had proposed an economic-benefit-for-growers resolution. Council killed a similar amendment that would’ve permitted medicinal marijuana growers to sell to external entities in April, despite conditionally re-authorizing medicinal marijuana cardholders to grow cannabis a couple of weeks later. The prevailing opinion held that Bradley’s amendment wouldn’t be a net positive for the tribe, given quality concerns and outside political pressure. Some argued that individual retail might even harm Qualla Enterprises’ — and, by extension, the tribe’s — cannabis revenue.
The latest resolution addressed the last concern most substantially. “4887 will now read as the following ownership limitation,” Bradley said during the Aug. 7 discussion. “Licenses for retail cannabis facilities shall only be issued to entities that are wholly owned by the tribe, organized under tribal law, or one of its wholly owned subsidiaries organized under tribal law.” He explained that growers would only have the right to sell to Qualla Enterprises, ensuring that Qualla would retain its monopoly on the retail end of the market chain. Bradley also proposed altering the tribal levy agricultural exemption so cannabis retailers would pay a tax.
But the reaction among council representatives was almost unanimous: now is not the time. One EBCI member refuted this sentiment in a measure of support for the resolution, declaring that “10 years ago, we were talking about cannabis law reform and saying it isn’t time, and it took years to get the appropriate laws changed. And look where we all are now … We can continue to sit on our laurels and kick the can down the road, but we’re looking at a burgeoning market.”
Bradley echoed the need for more growers in business, citing that the projected revenue from ECBI cannabis production was in the “ hundreds of millions” of dollars through 2026 , but Qualla has reported $33 million, which puts it on track to fall well short of its projection.
Yet some opposed to the resolution didn’t see themselves as turning away from a potential source of profit. Council Rep. Boyd Owle disputed the theory that individual growers would help Qualla reach its growing goals. He called up a Qualla Enterprises Board member, who testified that “we’ve had some sort of temporary issues of flower[ing] when we first started, and that’s not an issue anymore. We have the 20,000 square foot grow space … we’re ready to put plants in there right now.”
Perry Shell, the only council representative to vote in favor of the resolution, made a final plea. “You know, it’s kind of baffling to me here. James is going to put up his own capital,” Shell said. “He will take the business risk … I don’t see why we want to tell him he can’t do that.”
The resolution was subsequently killed.
Cannabis takes the place of proposed medicine park
The second ordinance concerning cannabis — Res. 4870 — didn’t initially mention the plant at all. Authored by Haley Atsei Cooper (Birdtown) and Mary “Missy” Crowe (Yellowhill), it advocated that the Cooper property purchased in 2022 be designated a cultural use area and medicine park. The land, Cooper said during the Aug. 7 meeting, had been the site of many archaeological findings and a diverse array of plant species; it should be preserved in its natural state and used for recreational, cultural, educational and religious purposes.
Like Bradley, Cooper had advocated for an unsuccessful prior version of this resolution. Cooper and Crowe submitted a resolution — tabled by the council this past March — with the same goal of pronouncing the Cooper property a cultural use area/medicine park. In the months following, Cooper said she and Crowe had met with elders to discuss their visions for the land, settling on a proposal to create a plant walk/trail with educational plaques for the community.
Cooper ended with a question: “Are there existing plans for the Cooper property at this time that council is aware of?” After a brief pause, Council Chairman Mike Parker clarified. “I think there was a resolution passed [for cannabis], right?” he said.
Qualla Enterprises General Manager Forrest Parker was called to the microphone to explain that, based on what “was passed, was ratified …” in favor of turning over the land to the LLC as an outdoor grow site, his team had already completed a topographic survey of the area and had continued to the next stage of the process. “We’re moving into our first phased approach,” he added.
After reviewing Cooper’s map of the proposed medicine park/cultural use area, Parker said “that’s pretty much most of the [cannabis] site” but added that he was willing to discuss preserving some of the land. In response, Parker suggested that the resolution be withdrawn so Haley and Parker could meet and parse out further details.
Principal Chief Michell Hicks echoed the recommendation, urging the two parties to participate in a task force to gather stakeholder opinions about the land “so it’s not an ‘us and them’ scenario.”
Cooper agreed to withdraw, emphasizing that a task force would be beneficial, but she was steadfast in her commitment to revising and resubmitting the resolution. She reiterated that a few key concerns remained, including the potential for the tall razorwire fence surrounding the cannabis crop and the plants’ strong smell to impact those engaging in nearby land ritual.
Questions arise
Qualla Enterprises’ takeover of the Cooper land was repeatedly conveyed as a done deal from the start of the Aug. 7 meeting. Even when responding to an argument by Bradley regarding the need for more cannabis suppliers, Owle added, “and with the Cooper property coming on board here, we can maybe hire another 90 [people] there.”
The governing body did indeed pass the resolution in May, designating the Cooper land as Qualla Enterprises territory. But there’s a complicating factor: Hicks vetoed on May 30. His June 5 letter read, “at this time, there are unanswered questions regarding the nature and extent of the cultural artifacts buried underground there, what areas can be disturbed or must be left alone, wetlands, how much of the property can actually support cannabis cultivation and whether other parts of the property are better suited to other uses.”
From the available public records, it appears that tribal council didn’t override Hicks’ veto, but discussions at the meeting implied the contrary. Though Hicks advocated for a community task force, he did not challenge council’s decision to award the land to the tribe’s cannabis venture.