Pubdate: Fri, 14 Sep 2012
Source: Palo Alto Weekly (CA)
Copyright: 2012 Embarcadero Publishing Company.
Contact:  http://www.paloaltoonline.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/334

EDITORIAL: NO ON MEASURE C

Other cities' experiences with medical-marijuana shops show it's a bad
idea

With Peninsula cities having almost uniformly passed ordinances
prohibiting so-called medical-marijuana dispensaries, Palo Alto has
been targeted by medical-marijuana advocates and libertarians as a
place where a liberal electorate might be persuaded to overturn that
ban.

An initiative petition signed by almost 5,000 registered voters forced
the City Council earlier this year to choose between adopting the
measure as presented or putting it on the ballot in the November election.

To no one's surprise, the council opted to let the voters decide, and
on Monday it voted unanimously to officially oppose the measure.

The signature-gathering effort itself was highly controversial, with
many complaints about aggressive solicitors and deceptive descriptions
of the measure.

If passed, up to three dispensaries would be entitled to operate in
Palo Alto, as long as they pay a $10,000 permit fee and a city tax of
4 percent of all gross receipts. Hours of operation would be limited
to between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m., and they could not be located in
residential neighborhoods or near schools, parks or day care centers.
Proponents characterize the measure as a way for terminally ill Palo
Alto residents to conveniently obtain marijuana for pain relief and
for the city to raise revenue.

When California voters passed Prop. 215, the Compassionate Use Act of
1996, they made legal the limited cultivation and physician-recommended
use of marijuana and opened the door to a proliferation of retail
dispensaries.

Many cities, including Palo Alto and its neighboring communities,
moved quickly to adopt prohibitions on dispensaries. Others, including
San Jose and most other large cities, adopted regulations and rules
that permitted dispensaries and have been dealing with problems ever
since.

In San Jose, dispensaries have become places attracting loitering,
disorderly conduct and drug use. City officials there are now trying
to figure out how to close them down. In spite of Prop. 215's
requirement of a physician recommendation to purchase medicinal
marijuana, in practice most dispensaries are not asking for legitimate
documentation and almost anyone can purchase it.

The last thing Palo Alto or any other city needs are such problems,
and we therefore urge voters to defeat Measure C.

In opposing Measure C, Palo Alto council members cited a variety of
reasons, including legal uncertainties, fear of attracting buyers from
throughout the Peninsula, belief that dispensaries are a subterfuge
that have little or nothing to do with medical treatment, and the
disruptive atmosphere in the vicinity of the dispensaries.

Another big part of the problem is the confused legal situation
surrounding marijuana use in California. Penalties for personal
possession of small amounts of marijuana by adults have been reduced
to infraction status, and passage of the Compassionate Use Act made it
legal under state law to grow and use small amounts of marijuana for
medical use. But we don't think many voters envisioned that allowing
limited legal cultivation would lead to the problems created by the
establishment of dispensaries and the need and desire of local
jurisdictions to impose regulations.

Since federal law contradicts California law and continues to make all
of this a crime, the latest concern of cities is that anything short
of prohibiting dispensaries could leave them vulnerable to federal
legal action. Several Palo Alto council members warned that issuing
permits to dispensaries could be viewed as aiding and abetting an
illegal activity by federal authorities.

On the other hand, City Attorney Molly Stump also cited several cases
before the state Supreme Court on the question of whether cities have
the right to impose any regulations due to the fact the Compassionate
Use Act created legal rights to cultivate and dispense marijuana for
medical purposes.

But one Long Beach case the Supreme Court opted not to review ruled
that a Long Beach ordinance similar to the one proposed in Measure C
violated federal law.

The negative impacts of dispensaries in cities where they are allowed
are reason enough to defeat Measure C. The continuing legal
uncertainties and the fact the courts have not yet clearly established
the authority of cities to allow, regulate or prevent dispensaries are
all the more reason why this ballot measure should fail.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt