|
Main Menu
|
|
Written by Peter Gabriel Keyes
|
|
Thursday, 14 June 2007 07:27 |
On Tuesday, June 5th, 2007, the Fairfield City Council voted unanimously to pass an ordinance that bans medicinal cannabis dispensaries within city limits. Worse yet, the ordinance is blatantly illegal. It purports to ban all marijuana transactions in the city, in defiance of Senate Bill 420. That legislation, passed in 2003, explicitly allows for patients to organize into collectives and cooperatives for the purpose of sharing medicine.
The City Council's lazy, sloppy action was in stark contrast to what happened at the Fairfield Planning Commission's meeting the previous month.
In May, 2007, the Fairfield Planning Commission listened carefully to pro-medicinal cannabis arguments by a half dozen advocates. After hearing commentary on their staff's illegal, overreaching proposed ordinance, they rejected it. The Commissioners wisely opted to advise an ordinance that permits dispensaries. Experienced pro-medicinal cannabis speakers Nathan Sands, Ryan Landers, Linda Jimenez, Galen Lawton, Lanette Davies and Peter Keyes confidently explained why dispensaries should be allowed. Allowing more than one speaker additional time, and specifically asking Landers back to answer questions, the Commission was overwhelmingly convinced that allowing dispensaries would be a good thing for Fairfield.
But, alas, the Planning Commission is only an advisory body, therefore they have no authority to enact local laws. They can only suggest them.
Beginning at 7pm, the City Council meeting had no less than 30 agenda items to address. The palliative pot advocates who showed up to speak were not surprised to learn that the dispensary item was placed last on the agenda.
Four hours into the meeting, at about 11:00pm, Mayor Harry Price announced the medicinal cannabis dispensary agenda item. After its title was officially read, Mayor Price asked Brian Miller to the stand to introduce the ordinance. Starting and stopping many times, Miller seemed embarrassed to be bringing this legislation to the table. But he fulfilled his duty, describing it as an "urgency ordinance."
After two years of delays, promises to study the issue, and continued police harassment of local patients, the Fairfield City Council suddenly was in an inexplicable rush. The urgency that they cited inspired audience members to look at each other and scratch their heads.
"...The Fairfield Municipal Code currently does not specifically address operation of medical marijuana dispensaries, which are permitted under the recent initiatives and acts," claimed Miller. "39 cities in California have enacted ordinances banning dispensaries. 80 other cities have passed moratoria banning them temporarily. Other cities, of course, have passed ordinances conditionally allowing them in the state. There are no definitive studies demonstrating or proving that medical marijuana dispensaries cause crime, however there are anecdotal reports of problems such as crime, burglaries, robberies, drug sales near dispensaries, large traffickers posing as caregivers, dispensing without a proper card, off site sales, large scale cultivation, and sales to youth...there are these issues out there, and, hence, we are moving forward with this prohibition."
City Attorney Greg Stepanicich pointed out that the "findings of urgency" were the only things added to the ordinance. Section 8 of the City's proposed ordinance reads, "The City Council finds and determines that the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare requires that this ordinance be enacted as an urgency ordinance...and take effect immediately upon adoption. City staff has received inquiries from individuals interested in providing medical marijuana to patients...If this ordinance does not become effective immediately, but instead becomes effective thirty days after its second reading, significant ambiguity or confusion regarding whether medical marijuana dispensaries are allowed under the zoning code could result. Further...the City Council finds that medical marijuana dispensaries have the potential to create public safety and law enforcement problems as well as other potential adverse impacts. Therefore, this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare, and its urgency is hereby declared." A mandatory component of an urgency ordinance, the "findings" had to be included to pass the law.
Council Member John Mraz asked for public comments, and Mayor Price called Galen Lawton to the stand.
Galen, the President of Solano Patients Group, a local activists organization, began by posing the question, "How can the City adopt an urgency ordinance when no studies have been conducted? Allowing dispensaries would reduce the black market for marijuana," according to Lawton. "Income stream from doctor's visits, I.D. cards and sales of medicine will be kept local...for about the last hour and a half we've heard about different programs that need to be funded -- here's a population that wants to be regulated and taxed.
"2 years ago I supported Fairfield's moratorium on medical marijuana. Though I support patient's and caregiver's rights, I think unregulated dispensaries are a bad idea for Fairfield. Unfortunately the City has not acted in good faith. The City has not completed a 45 day moratorium report, a 1 year report, or a 2 year report. These are public records that are
required...Also, as noted by the Planning Commission, the City's definition of dispensary is too broad...thus will be deemed illegal in court. This will leave the City vulnerable to the propagation of unregulated dispensaries..."
Galen referred to Section 3 of the proposed ordinance, which states, "...a new definition for 'Medical Marijuana Dispensary' to read as follows: Any location, structure, vehicle, store, co-op, residence, or similar facility used, in full or in part, as a place at or in which marijuana is sold, traded, exchanged, bartered for in any way..." This section of the ordinance is overruled by SB 420, which explicitly allows for patients and caregivers to collectively grow and share medical marijuana. However, the Council was not particularly concerned with that fact, as they plowed through the legislation without making any reference to the overly ambitious dispensary definition.
Galen was interrupted by Mayor Price, who instructed him to wrap up his comments. The local advocate complied.
The hurried Mayor then called on Lanette Davies to speak.
Lanette represented the Sacramento Association of Collectives, a loose affiliation of 4 Sacramento dispensaries: Doctor's Orders, canna care, Capitol Wellness Collective, and River City Patient Center. "...They are not an illegal entity. They are here solely for the purpose of legal patients...They are here for people like you. Like your families. People
that have cancer, that have Crohn's Disease, that have AIDS, that have chronic pain for whatever reason. They are not here to start a criminal activity, they are here to provide service for patients, which are your average everyday people...it's no different than acupuncture, it's no different than massage therapy, it's no different than nutritionists...you
should not be turning out our patients into the streets...they provide a tax service to your community...almost all dispensary owners want to conform to state law. they do not support crime. They do not support illegal growing operations inside homes, where they've been gutting these houses...this is a healthcare issue, not a drug issue. You still have an issue with drugs. And you still support the CAMP project to go out into your local forests to be able to find it. That's not being supported by your dispensaries, or your medical marijuana field. This field is strictly for the people. And as far as looking at an age of a person, you say they look so great. Everybody looks 'great' sometimes-"
"One minute to conclude, please, Ms. Davies," grumbled Mayor Price.
"...It is up to the county to provide safe access. And that's what the dispensaries provide...and they do also keep your crime down."
Local gadfly George Guinn, with his shock of long grey hair, spoke as the authoritative voice of reason.
"It's really a shame that this Council didn't have a chance to be at the Planning Commission meeting ," lamented George. "I had the opportunity to do so. And it was quite a revelation. The evidence that was presented by the staff was hearsay and anecdotal. And it wouldn't stand muster in court...they took newspaper articles and things off the internet, and that really was designed to be inflammatory and scare people, but really wasn't very factual. I think what you need to do is allow a dispensary of medical marijuana. But you need to strictly control it, and put it in a place where it is least likely to be a problem, as far as people complaining...You don't just ban something and think the problem is gonna go away...if a person is sick they deserve compassion. Everybody's gonna die at one point in time, and you don't need to make things hard for 'em, if they have a problem that
medical marijuana would solve..."
The Mayor's pattern was getting predictable by this time. He would cut off each speaker after 2 minutes of testimony, informing them that they had one minute to conclude.
I was the last speaker that evening. I began, "Sick and dying people in Fairfield should not have to go to places like Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, Hayward, Marin or Sacramento to get the medicine that can, and very often will save their lives. Eliminating the possibility for dispensaries will hurt the sickest, most infirm, and the closest to death.
They need the medicine the most, and it's going to be the hardest to travel for folks who are in wheelchairs, on crutches, people with cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis. The often may not be able to drive, they may not have the money for public transportation. Section 3, I just wanted to point out, is superceded by Heath & Safety Code 11362.7. I would advise counsel to take a closer look at that, respectfully. I implore you to show that Fairfield is not the least compassionate city in Northern California! I urge you to implement the Planning Commission's suggestions and allow for the compromises that they have suggested. They listened to the speakers very carefully and they rejected-"
"One minute to conclude, Mr. Keyes," barked Mayor Price.
“...I urge you to take a good look at their suggestion to reject this proposal, that again, is illegal. Even if you pass this, the definition of dispensaries is going to have to be very much tightened up, to even pass muster with state law. So please, take a look at what the Planning Commission is suggesting. I would suggest convening a task force of specialists in the field. That would be law enforcement, somebody from the medical and the patient community, and members of the Council to craft a fair ordinance allowing for limited dispensaries...”
All speakers having exhausted their 3 minutes each time slots, Mayor Price closed the public participation section of the meeting, and asked if the Council had any questions.
The booming bass voice of Council Member John Mraz blared through the loud public address system asking, "I just had two questions. One was to the City Attorney. Mr. Galen said that our action, if we do this, would be inappropriate, and could be overthrown at a later time. Is that true?"
City Attorney Greg Stepanicich replied, "We disagree. And the reason is we do not believe the ordinance that we are adopting is inconsistent with the Compassionate Use Act. We're dealing here with just a land use question of regulating, and in this case prohibiting commercial transactions with medical marijuana. It does not affect the relationship of a caregiver and a qualified patient, which is authorized under the state law. So, I think one thing that's been little bit confused here. There's been some arguments being made that we're taking this action because we believe the Compassionate Use Act is invalid. Well, no court yet has made that determination, so we are treating the state statute as a valid statute. This ordinance itself as drafted as a land use regulation, in our view is consistent with the Compassionate Use Act."
"My second question was to the Chief," continued Council Member Mraz. "In Whittier, did you have any problems with those dispensaries down there?"
Kenton Rainy, current Chief of Police of Fairfield, formerly of Whittier, California, testified, "From what I recall, we did receive numerous calls for service, uh, in and around the dispensaries, and I would have to do some additional research to see, uh, uh, um, were any narcotics related activities, undercover operations that yielded any illegal behavior."
"Any other questions for staff?" Asked the Mayor.
"The only thing I'd like to say is that I appreciate the folks that showed up to tell us their side, the 'pro-marijuana' side of this issue," remarked Council Member Mraz, "and I'd like to thank Galen for keeping this short and to the point. And I appreciate that. Thank you."
Mayor Price signaled that he was ready to bring the measure to a vote, but lone female Council Member Marilyn Farley shot in, "I'd just like to make a comment. We've been hearing about this for quite some time. I don't know that I can speak for my colleagues, but I'm hoping I can. That people on this council do have compassion for the patients. And do want them to get appropriate medication, and I think there are cases where that can include medical marijuana.
"I wanted to make sure I fully understand the law. So I printed out the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 codified in Health & Safety Code 11362.5. And I read through what that said. And then I printed out the text of Senate Bill 420, that was part of the statutes of 2003. That was referred to by Peter Keyes. There's nothing that I read in either one of those documents that requires the City to allow a dispensary. And I think that's the heart of the issue. Which is what the City Attorney was saying, is that this is a zoning issue.
"I think if patients here grow marijuana for their own use, then that's something that our police officers should respect. But that's a different matter than opening a dispensary. And I don't believe that the State Law requires that. And I'm in favor of passing this urgency ordinance, given the current situation."
"Marilyn, you said it well for me," concluded the Mayor. Ms. Farley made a motion to pass the ordinance, seconded by Council Member Frank Kardos. Mayor Price then attempted to take a vote on the ordinance, but was interrupted by counsel. The title of the ordinance would have to be read aloud first, pointed out City Attorney Stepanicich.
City Clerk Arletta Kelley Cortright dutifully read the title of the ordinance, "An urgency ordinance of the City of Fairfield amending Chapter 25, Article 1 of the Fairfield City Code to clarify that medical marijuana dispensaries are not a permitted use in any zone in the City."
The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was swiftly adjourned.
The future of this law remains unclear. To comply with state law, the City Council will either have to come to their senses, and modify their ordinance, particularly the dispensary definition, or possibly face costly and contentious lawsuits.
The way pot patients get treated in Fairfield, it is no wonder that this is the course of action the City Council chose to take. It is another blow in an unbroken string of misguided and short-sighted acts by this governing body.
2 seats on the Fairfield City Council are up for election this coming November 6. This would be an excellent time for medicinal cannabis advocates to run candidates for office that are sympathetic to the movement. Women and people of color are also encouraged to run, as the council is currently male-dominated, and all white.
Video of the proceedings may be viewed here:
http://www.ci.fairfield.ca.us/councilvideoarchives.htm
Select June 5, 2007, and scroll all the way to the bottom for agenda item #30.
 |
|
Last Updated on Thursday, 14 June 2007 07:29 |
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed