Pubdate: Wed, 09 Feb 2005
Source: Sacramento Union, The (CA)
Contact:  2005 The Sacramento Union
Website: http://www.sacunion.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3697
Author: Sacramento Union Staff
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/meth.htm (Methamphetamine)
Cited: Raich v. Ashcroft ( www.angeljustice.org/ )
Cited: Drug Enforcement Administration ( www.dea.gov )
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California)

ORDINANCE TO DISPENSE MEDICAL MARIJUANA CONSIDERED

Supervisors Hear Details Of Draft Plan

Sacramento Supervisors inched toward developing an ordinance that would 
permit a limited number of medical marijuana dispensaries to operate within 
county boundaries. Most of Tuesday afternoon was taken up with a 
largely-rational discussion of a much debated topic that convinced 
supervisors the proposed ordinance was not ready for public scrutiny.

Board members received a report from a county task force that outlined 
details of how the county might safely permit the operation of two 
dispensaries to serve medical needs in the region. The report covered 
topics such as licensing care providers, hours of operation, location 
restrictions, and how the cannabis could be dispensed to people with 
authorized medical prescriptions. The county is about mid-way into a 
12-month moratorium on implementing any changes to current ordinances.

Central to the discussion was a case pending in the U.S. Supreme Court that 
will rule on a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals injunction that stopped the 
federal government from interfering with Angel Raich's use of medical 
marijuana. Under California law (The Compassionate Use Act passed in 1996) 
her use of the substance was legal, pitting state law against federal law. 
Raich vs. Ashcroft, closely watched by states and medical marijuana 
advocates, should be decided sometime this summer.

Supervisors voiced concern that an ordinance adopted now would ultimately 
be impacted by the outcome of the federal case. "I would not want to see 
people invest money that might be seized by the federal government," said 
Supervisor Susan Peters of providers who could establish distribution centers.

Although much of the afternoon's discussion avoided testimony about the 
merits or drawbacks of using marijuana to relieve some physical conditions, 
representatives from law enforcement were on hand to object to any proposal 
that would permit dispensing the substance. Arguments ranged from increased 
street crime to negative impacts on businesses near dispensaries.

"We firmly believe this threatens the public safety in our community and 
fosters criminal activity," said Sacramento County District Attorney Jan 
Scully.

A representative from the Drug Enforcement Agency, however, said marijuana 
use and distribution would get tough treatment from federal authorities. 
"It is no longer a harmless or soft drug," said Gordon Taylor from the DEA. 
"Marijuana remains a Schedule 1 controlled substance."

He warned that purveyors of medical marijuana, growers and even users would 
be subject to arrest and prosecution. In addition, he said that owners of 
property where dispensaries are located could have their property seizes by 
the feds.

Supervisor Illa Collin asked if earlier testimony that marijuana is a 
bigger priority for the DEA than stopping the production and sale of 
methamphetamines is true. Taylor responded that his agency is "charged with 
enforcing federal laws" and agreed that meth is a serious issue in the 
Central Valley.

Advocates of medical marijuana mainly focused on the details of the draft 
ordinance. A Carmichael pharmacist told the board that marijuana should be 
handled like other drugs -- with requirements for quality, potency and 
purity, and proper labeling. A dispensary owner from Oakland testified that 
his business had no negative effects on nearby businesses and others talked 
about the unmet needs of suffering patients in the Sacramento region.

So much new information was presented to supervisors that they directed the 
task force to add more detail to its proposed ordinance and to expand its 
membership. The pending Supreme Court decision also swayed supervisors to 
postpone outreach to community groups about the ordinance. Board chairman 
Roger Dickenson, however, felt an urgency about the measure.

"I think we ought to move ahead. I don't think the Supreme Court decision 
is likely to resolve this," he said. "As we wait there are real people out 
there, suffering real pain." The task force was directed to report back to 
the board in three to four months.