Pubdate: Sat, 19 Jan 2008
Source: Willits News (CA)
Copyright: 2008 Willits News
Contact:  http://www.willitsnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4085
Author: Mike A'Dair, TWN Staff Writer
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

SUPES PUNT ON POT DISPENSARY REGS

Supervisors agreed to take no action on two draft ordinances that 
would have regulated medical marijuana dispensaries in Mendocino County.

The board took no action because a majority of board members 
concluded the county is not currently having any problems with 
medical marijuana dispensaries. There are currently three 
dispensaries in the county: two in the Ukiah area and one in the Fort 
Bragg area.

The draft ordinances were the product of the board's 2007 Criminal 
Justice Committee (CJC), chaired by Jim Wattenburger. Michael Delbar 
was the second committee member.

The CJC could not reach agreement on a single ordinance, so brought 
two ordinances to the board for consideration. One ordinance (crafted 
by Wattenburger) would have limited the number of allowable 
dispensaries in the county to three, and would have limited the 
number of clients that could have been served by each dispensary at 
20 per day. The other ordinance (crafted by Delbar) would have banned 
all dispensaries in the county.

The Wattenburger ordinance also contained other restrictions. It 
would have prohibited dispensaries being set up within 1,000 feet of 
a church, school, park, smoke shop or another dispensary. It also 
would have required dispensary clients to be legal residents of 
Mendocino County.

Several people addressed the board on the matter; nearly all of the 
comments were directed toward the Wattenburger version. Most agreed 
his version of the ordinance was a good first step, but needed fine-tuning.

Dona Franks, owner and manager of a Sonoma County dispensary, felt 
setting the limit at 20 clients a day was too restrictive. "Try to 
run a business with only 20 people coming in a day."

Attorney Lisa Gygax, who has been working with Americans for Safe 
Access as well as regularly attending CJC meetings, also believes the 
Wattenburger version is too restrictive. "By setting the limit at 
three dispensaries, you are creating the kind of impacts that this 
board is trying to avoid."

Supervisor John Pinches said he couldn't support either version. "To 
me, these ordinances are an affront to Proposition 215. There's 
nobody who could weave their way through all of these restrictions a 
thousand feet here, a thousand feet there. In a little town like 
Covelo or Legget, if we put this in, you put in these restrictions 
and pretty soon there's no place in those towns you could put in a dispensary.

"It was the intent of people when they passed 215 was to give people 
access to medical cannibis. And both of these ordinances don't do that."

Supervisor David Colfax felt adoption of the Wattenburger ordinance 
would represent a legal liability for the county.

"Local government has no business trying to circumvent federal law, 
because we know we are going to lose that battle," Colfax said.

"I find it very strange that the county is willing to be complicit in 
this activity," he added. "I understand the intent. But to me it 
seems to try to give standing to an activity which the federal 
government has deemed illegal. I'm uncomfortable that this (a 
dispensary business license) is being granted on the basis of 
verifiable information.

"Is the county prepared to provide legal counsel to individuals who 
come forward with this evidence?"

"We're not requiring them to give us this information," Deputy County 
Counsel Doug Losak told Colfax. "We are saying, if you want this 
permit, you have to give us that information."

The swing vote on the question was Supervisor Kendall Smith, who said 
she did not feel the ordinance was in its final form.

Pinches asked why dispensaries needed to be regulated. He said since 
there are only three dispensaries in the county, there really isn't 
any problem with them. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

"The bottom line is, dispensaries are illegal," Delbar replied. "They 
are not in 215; they are not in 420. The problem we have is there are 
no controls on selling medical marijuana. It's not like we are 
talking about tennis shoes and toothpaste here, folks.

"We have no say whatsoever, if someone wanted to come in and open up 
a dispensary, next to a school, operated by a guy with a criminal 
background, and he wanted to run it 24/7 selling to minors, there 
isn't a damn thing we could do about it.

"The responsible, pro-active route for this body to take is to take a 
pro-active role and take action on this now, before there is a 
problem," Delbar said.

But his reasoning carried little weight with the board, which decided 
to take no action on the matter.

Pinches attempted to put a positive spin on the CJC's efforts. "I 
think we have ended up with a result here," he said. "We have had 
attorneys that have worked on this, to tell us what could be done, 
and what could not be done.

"I think a lot of work has been done here and that won't be lost. One 
of the results is, we're startin' to get some state legislators 
talkin' about this. And for that, I commend you."

But Wattenburger told the board. "I am greatly disappointed that we 
were not able to step up to the plate. I am tragically disappointed. 
So, the situation will continue as present and that is a darn shame."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom