Opinion re: City to vote on medical cannabis ordinance Jan. 29

The City Council of Sacramento is planning to address amending Ordinance No. 2010-038, adopted by the Sacramento City Council on Nov. 9, 2010. Part D, section iii, currently reads, "No medical marijuana dispensary shall be established or located within 600 feet, measured from the nearest property lines of each of the affected parcels, of any park, school (public or private K-12), child care center, child care-family day care home (large or small), youth-oriented facility, church/faith congregation, substance abuse center, movie theater/cinema, or tobacco store.” Though I’m not privy to the new language, the gist of what the City Council plans is to extend restrictions on parks, schools (public or private K-12) and “anywhere children gather.” This amendment was proposed by Darrell Fong shortly after he was seated in his new post as City Councilmember for District 7. The idea is to bring city law in line with federal laws regarding Drug-free school zones, in hopes this will appease the federal prosecutors somehow.

The current map proposed would, after the vote, create concentrations of dispensing collectives in the outer areas, to which the sickest patients cannot travel. Keep in mind that unlike pharmaceuticals, you can’t just send some friend out to pick up your cannabis.

If the city council passes this rule without amending any other restrictions, it will mean that any dispensary that has to move will not be able to. Because of federal harassment of landlords, dispensaries are being run out of their homes on a regular basis, in spite of paying double and sometimes triple the normal rent value. Many of these restrictions, such as “tobacco store,” “movie theater/cinema” and “church/faith congregation,” were thrown in on a whim because someone thought it might cause a problem. The reality is that if you look at statistics, crime is generally lower in the proximity of dispensaries, and they have fewer incident reports than the average pharmacy.

As far as I know, the federal government has no opinion about “parcel to parcel” when it comes to these limitations. Aside from ridiculous restrictions like a tobacco store, if said tobacco store is in a shopping complex, the entire property and parking lot would be considered a “parcel.” This means that a dispensary, though it could physically be 1,000 feet from the sensitive use area, measuring from building to building, or “parcel to parcel,” would make them too close.

If the city passed the new restriction without revisiting other sensitive uses, dispensing collectives that could otherwise find a new, sympathetic landlord, or purchase their own location so they could fight the federal forfeitures themselves (as Harborside Health Center succeeded in doing) will simply have to go away and lose the approximately $42,000 investment in their “license.”

It is already built into the ordinance that each dispensary has to declare its presence and that anyone, be they a barbershop or drug treatment facility, can give input. These issues could be decided on a case-by-case basis by planning experts, and any potential nuisance could be prevented there. Let’s not forget to mention that if a dispensary behaves as a nuisance, the city can revoke their license, so all of this arbitrary line-drawing really isn’t necessary.

While I don’t believe a locked door where people go in and come out with a paper bag, where no one is smoking or bandying the medicine about, is harmful to students traveling to and from schools, I am sensitive to the legal pressure our city officials have to deal with. I spoke to one city worker whose job directly deals with dispensaries, and this person told me they feared “ending up in an orange jumpsuit” themselves. This is real, and I don’t expect anybody to fly in the face of Uncle Sam at his or her own peril. I really just wish we could create sensible regulation that allows at least the 38 dispensaries that have been open since before the moratorium to find new homes and continue to help patients and pay taxes.

So on Tuesday’s meeting, my colleagues and I intend to make the best of the extended media coverage that shows up for votes of this kind. We will be rallying against more restrictions without regard to impact of patients’ access, to show them that we are not happy with the ban on outdoor cultivation, and to remind them that we pay 12.25 percent (8.25 state and 4 city) taxes on our medicine, while others pay zero.

I hope anyone who believes in our civil right to choose a medicine made legal by a majority vote will join Safe Access Sacramento, Crusaders for Patients Rights, The Committee for Safe Patient Access to Regulated Cannabis, Health, Education and Legal Patients Rights and others in the Medical Cannabis Patient community. We will gather 5pm Tuesday January 29th on the sidewalk in front of City Hall to be heard, then go inside with us at six and speak to the council about this matter.

Editor’s note: The “News Digest” goes out every Tuesday morning and highlights our best stories, photos and videos from the week prior. Sign me up.

Disclosure: Medical cannabis Activist, former Dispensary Operator

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue. RSS Feed

January 25, 2013 | 11:09 AM

Cannabis has been used by the Chinese in the B.C. times. Cannabis has been used by our founding fathers and should be free to use just like any other herb. It is a plant! Ever since the Nixon lies/propaganda, our people had been brainwashed to believe Cannabis is bad. We were wrong when we segregated the people of color, and you are wrong to give Cannabis Patients the same treatment. Wake up America! Patients Vote too! In 1996, California voted. Wake up state capital and join the times, we will go nowhere.

January 25, 2013 | 1:01 PM

As someone who is not originally from the USA, i am baffled by the laws that are made in Washington and then not followed in states and cities. It’s a fascinating study in chaos.

I think laws banning medical marijuana are ridiculous, but the process keeps me entertained.

January 25, 2013 | 1:44 PM

Do I expect the City Council of Sacramento to be enlightened and/or progressive on this or any issue? No. That would be silly.

January 25, 2013 | 1:58 PM

The first the the city must understand is that state law triumphs local law. I understand the city council’s concern on crime associated with medical marijuana dispensaries. As a patient, and a student who studies criminology, making it harder to receive ones medicine leaves a black market open and catch-22 of criminal activity. Washington and Colorado have it right, make cannabis safely accessible and you have a way to allocate police resources to arrest drug dealers and to remove the hard-core synthetics of the street.

With propaganda spewed out by the Nixon and [don't forget] the Regan administrations people get cannabis mixed up with actual drugs which are not natural, dangerous for the body as well as the community. Cannabis is safer than anything lab made you find at a pharmacy, which of course can be addicting which leads to the crime that the city was trying to prevent in the first place with these strict laws against collectives.

In the end, if the city wants to reduce crime and make it safer for patients, they must attack the black market which contains other drugs and ruinins the reputation of cannabis. Attacking dispensaries and removing safe access will not solve any problems. In this country it is time to remove ourselves from this bias and show the true wonder of safe, spiritual love which comes from the cannabis plant.

January 25, 2013 | 2:05 PM

If a dispensary opened on the vacant swath of “The Kay” from 7th to 10th, it would likely bring related businesses to this area. Also, the poor and the sick who live downtown would not have to travel so far to get their meds. This win/win is unlikely to happen as long as medical marijuana is politicized like it is now.

January 25, 2013 | 2:24 PM

The City and County need to block Feds from confiscating properties that are home to Cannabis dispensaries. State Law must be defended against the misguided tyranny of Federal pot laws. Let’s not get crazy with overly restrictive zoning laws either. Cannabis dispensaries are a blessing to the community; not a danger. This is the green improvement that is needed on the K Street mall. Think of the big anchor stores, like Macy’s, that are the glue that hold the malls together. Cannabis dispensaries would attract today’s crowd. Smoking areas would need to be provided; perhaps on the rooftop? After medicating, there’s nothing better than catching a movie, or discussing the origins of the Universe over snacks and peppermint tea. The cannabis economy is great for Sacramento and a future boom for California.

January 26, 2013 | 1:04 AM

If the state law is 600 ft I don’t understand why the city wants to push clubs out 1000 ft except to eliminate them. There is no Federal Law. There is Haaig’s policy of 1000 ft. Since when is Haaig the Federal Government, I don’t remember voting for her.

January 26, 2013 | 8:22 AM

“Children” are not allowed inside [without a rec and their parent]. That is sufficient. Period.

January 29, 2013 | 9:09 AM

“Two of my favorite things are sitting on my front porch smoking a pipe of sweet hemp, and playing my Hohner harmonica.” – Abraham Lincoln (from a letter written by Lincoln during his presidency to the head of the Hohner Harmonica Company in Germany)

Leave a Reply