|
The City of Sacramento will allow medical marijuana dispensaries. So will the neighboring City of West Sacramento. In parallel developments, both adjoining cities are drafting medicinal cannabis dispensary ordinances. Stakeholder input has been, and continues to be, sought by the cities.
West Sacramento is a small town of about 50,000 people. It is counterintuitively located in Yolo County, while the City of Sacramento is in Sacramento County. West Sacramento is likely heading towards a cap of two dispensaries. Sacramento, with a larger city council, and a population ten times the size of West Sac’s, is possibly leaning towards a limit of about a dozen medical marijuana storefront facilities.
Both cities are taking a relatively calm, reasoned approach to the sometimes contentious issue. And both draft ordinances arguably have, or will have many issues that need to be ironed out.
West Sacramento convened their one and only stakeholder’s meeting on the subject on November 18th, 2009. Representing Medical Marijuana of America, I advised West Sacramento officials about many items in need of improvement in their draft ordinance. City staff did a fairly good job of summarizing suggestions made by concerned attendants.
I suggested that they change the definition of Medical Marijuana Dispensary to mean providing to more than ten patients, rather than providing to one or more patient. I explained that this would be to protect small families of patients, and small collectives of roommates who are all patients. Just because a few people share pot amongst themselves, they should not necessarily be considered a dispensary, I argued.
Under the draft ordinance, dispensaries have to be located at least 1,000 feet away from colleges and adult schools, as well as elementary, middle and high schools. I submitted that “higher education” should be struck from that list. It always seemed like keeping dispensaries far away from schools is a psychological way of appearing to keep pot away from kids. Trying to keep it away from adult students is silly, in my view.
The city is seeking to bar individuals with drug convictions from opening dispensaries. I argued that some people with drug priors might just be the optimal operators of dispensaries – because they have experience selling marijuana!
In the draft, the city is leaning towards a random selection of dispensary operators. I agreed with the majority of the stakeholders that a merit-based approach, or a numerical ranking system based on detailed karmic brownie points, would be preferable.
The draft stated that dispensaries, “shall not cultivate or process marijuana.” I suggested striking all of those words. I argued that processing was necessary to get the wholesale cannabis from the large pound bags into the smaller retail gram and eighth bags. In response, the city added these words, “For purposes of this Ordinance, ‘process’ does not mean packaging and re-packing marijuana.” They did not go on to define what “process” does mean, or explain why they want to prevent it from occurring.
I explained that cultivation would be crucial if the dispensaries were to provide clones, or starter plants. Dispensaries should provide cuttings, I added. It is very important for patients to be able to grow their own marijuana if they can, and using clones is the most reliable way for prospective cultivators to start with good stock.
Under a section entitled, “Dispensary Supply,” West Sacramento’s 10-page proposed law states, “A Dispensary shall not possess more that eight (8) ounces of dried marijuana per Person with an Identification Card, and maintain no more than six (6) mature or twelve (12) immature marijuana plants per Person with an Identification Card…” I advised removing those words, because those limitations have been held unconstitutional by numerous California courts. The city borrowed the limits from SB 420, which was a piece of legislation written as a follow up to California’s voter approved medical marijuana law, the Compassionate Use Act (CUA). The legislature’s response has always been intended to simply be expansions, and clarifications of the CUA. But court rulings have held that the plant and dried cannabis limitations in SB 420 are unconstitutional. Only the voters can place new limits on a voter approved initiative. At press time, the California Supreme Court was still reviewing the case, which is People vs. Kelley.
A section called, “Dispensing Operations,” states, “A Dispensary shall only be authorized to dispense medical marijuana to a Person With an Identification Card, for whom the applicant is that person’s primary caregiver.” I urged the drafters to strike the entire sentence. The first part is against the law because it mandates that patients participate in a voluntary I.D. card program if they are to collectively associate. And the second part is outdated due to a court decision called People vs. Mentch. The decision strikes down the notion that a dispensary can reasonably be construed as the patient’s primary caregiver.
Accordingly, I asked that a section requiring that dispensaries, “Establish Residency of the Person with an Identification Card,” be removed. That clause is not lawful, I argued, because it clearly discriminates against huge numbers of Californians that the state medical marijuana law is intended to protect. This unfairly disenfranchised class would consist of qualified patients with a physician’s recommendation for medical cannabis who choose not to purchase the State issued identification card.
Police representative David Delaney stated his opinion that California’s medical marijuana law is simply an affirmative defense in court, as opposed to any absolute rights that can be presumed prior to arrest and adjudication. Longtime medical marijuana advocate Ryan Landers begged to differ, citing the court decision in People vs. Mower as evidence to the contrary.
West Sacramento officials showed on a map some places where dispensaries were likely to be allowed to operate. These areas included the central business corridor on West Capitol Avenue, and a sprawling, underdeveloped shopping center anchored by an IKEA furniture store and a gigantic Wal-Mart Supercenter.
On December 14, 2009, West Sac released their latest draft ordinance regulating medical marijuana dispensaries. Few, if any of the suggestions made by cannabis advocates have been implemented into the ordinance at press time. However, the city has added further restrictions on dispensaries.
For example, the draft ordinance now states, “There shall be no on-site sales of alcohol, tobacco or Drug Paraphernalia, and no on-site consumption of alcohol, tobacco,or marijuana,” and, “A Dispensary shall dispense medical marijuana in a container that provides the name of the Dispensary, the telephone number of the Dispensary, and an identification number to establish that the medical marijuana was dispensed for the exclusive use of the Person with an Identification Card.”
The West Sacramento City Council has scheduled a workshop on their medical marijuana ordinance for their 6:30pm meeting on Wednesday, December 16, 2009. The cannabis item has been buried at number 18 out of 19 agenda items.
West Sac’s Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on the ordinance at 6pm on December 17. The meetings will take place at City Hall, at 1110 West Capitol Avenue.
Across the river in Sacramento, the city’s Law and Legislation Committee gave new clues about their medical marijuana dispensary ordinance at their December 1st, 2009 meeting. Chair Sandy Sheedy divulged her intent to whittle Sacramento’s forty-some dispensaries down to “a baker’s dozen,” presumably meaning thirteen. Sheedy cited Oakland’s current cap of four dispensaries as her sole reason for choosing that amount.
Ex-cop and Committee member Robbie Waters suggested trying to tweak the zoning so that they would end up somewhere near Sheedy’s goal.
Member Lauren Hammond said she had to think about numerical caps.
Sandy Sheedy declared, “I don’t believe we need on-site consumption,” without further explanation.
Lauren Hammond cautioned, “I think we need to be prepared for on-site consumption. Just because we don’t allow it doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen.”
Committee member Steve Cohn, who pronounced that he is “fundamentally opposed to the idea of a cap,” suggested that he may support a cap on the number of “larger” dispensaries. Square footage - and whether or not smoking is allowed - would likely determine what facilities would qualify as “larger,” and solid numbers were not worked out.
Robbie Waters showed an uncharacteristically keen interest in certain details of medical marijuana provision. He asked advocates to estimate how much pre-rolled joints cost, compared with loose marijuana, and also compared with edible cannabis preparations. Waters also made it clear that he wanted his district – the Pocket area – to be serviced by a medical marijuana dispensary!
“We will be as good as our city representatives request us to be,” promised dispensary entrepreneur Lanette Davies during the public comment section of the hearing. While philosophically opposing numerical caps, Davies suggested the number 25 for a limit on the number of dispensaries, “just off the top of [her] head.”
Sandy Sheedy received universally high marks for suggesting that the health department should oversee edible medicinal cannabis products.
Revolutionary advocate and representative of California Cannabis Incorporated Keith Kimber stirred things up by threatening to sue the city. The specifics on his allegations of the city’s crime were somewhat vague, but he did cite violations of the RICO act. Kimber advised the crowd, which contained many dispensary operators, that the city’s charter makes them already legal, if they are defined as social clubs. Kimber also stressed his opposition to numerical caps on the number of dispensaries allowed. He stated that the proper approach would be one akin to that of an economist. The marketplace should determine how many retail outlets there are, argued Kimber. Any other system would be more arbitrary by design.
Land use and Medical Cannabis Dispensary attorney James Anthony questioned the idea of fixed limitations on dispensaries’ proximity to “sensitive uses.” Anthony pleaded, “I would urge you to consider - rather than a fixed number of 1,000 feet or 300 feet…the concept of reasonable buffering from so-called sensitive uses…(T)hat list of sensitive uses should be clearly defined, and described in terms of how are they sensitive exactly to this distribution of medical cannabis. Especially if you decide to disallow on site consumption. It’s difficult to see exactly what the impact would be of somebody walking out with a small brown paper bag.”
Once the public comment section was closed, three different maps were displayed on a projection screen. One map showed areas that dispensaries could potentially operate under the 300 foot limitation from sensitive uses. The next map showed where they might be able to open under the 500 foot limitation. The third map showed where dispensaries may be able to locate with a 1,000 foot limitation scheme. Of the 40 or so dispensaries open in the City of Sacramento, about four could remain at their location under the most generous proposal. The 500 foot limitation proposal would allow about three existing dispensaries to perhaps remain. And the 1,000 foot limitation template would allow only one or two existing dispensaries to continue operating at their current location.
Acknowledging that Sacramento is becoming somewhat of a local mecca for cannabis procurement, Member Steve Cohn conceded, “Maybe we should have a different standard for the heavily commercial parts of the central city than we do for the rest of the city…There’s people coming from all over the region, it’s not just the City of Sacramento.”
Lauren Hammond pointed out, “You can’t deny that there’s a cluster of these dispensaries in Midtown. Most of them are east of 16th [Street].”
“Clusters - I’m not comfortable with having,” complained Sandy Sheedy.
Lauren Hammond opined, “They can always move. With Google search and Mapquest, people can find you. You don’t have to be in Midtown.”
West Sacramento will probably soon have two brand new, permitted medical marijuana dispensaries. And Sacramento, which currently has about 40 dispensaries, may soon be down to about twelve medical pot outlets.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed