April’s two-seat election for the City Council may have become easier for voters to decide on Monday night.

Two of the candidates – Albert Vera and Daniel Lee — came down on opposing sides in the heavy but onesided debate over cannabis retail regulations, perils and the belated release of the proposed but far from finalized rules for selling pot.

Second-time candidate Mr. Lee firmly planted his convictions on the liberal side. “I will disagree with a number of Culver City residents,” he began, and one could imagine voters hunching forward.

Mr. Lee, an ally-protege of Councilwoman Meghan Sahli-Wells as he was last time, emphasized that there is nothing to fear about marijuana. “An overdose does not lead to death,” he said.

Repeatedly he commended the Council for a “fantastic” job in being truthful about cannabis and defogging traditional fears about the drug. He did not find anything wrong with the short regulation inspection time for the community to examine scores of new rules or the pace t the January finish line.

Mr. Vera’s perspective, to understate, is dramatically different.

He was sternly critical of the lightning release time for the cannabis regs and the tiny window for public inspection.

Despite an avalanche of contrary information, there is no deadline for Culver City.

Looking at three of his perhaps future colleagues on the dais, “I urge you not to rush through this process,” Mr. Vera said. “Let the public weigh in. Take the time to figure out what they want.”