Pubdate: Fri, 12 Oct 2012
Source: Palo Alto Weekly (CA)
Copyright: 2012 Embarcadero Publishing Company.
Contact:  http://www.paloaltoonline.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/334
Author: Gennady Sheyner

BALLOT MEASURE: PALO ALTO SUCKED INTO STATEWIDE MARIJUANA DEBATE

City, marijuana advocates clash over whether legalized dispensaries
are a 'humane' solution or a misguided one

After wafting through Los Angeles, San Jose and Oakland, California's
cloudy debate over marijuana law will drift into Palo Alto next month,
when voters consider whether to allow three dispensaries to open shop
in the city.

But as the two campaigns over the Measure C make clear, the terms of
the medical-marijuana debate have changed drastically since the
sizzling and provocative this-is-your-brain-on-drugs days of the late
1980s. The arguments over dispensaries now focus less on the drug's
effects or its possible status as a "gateway" drug (though these still
pop up now and then) and more on land-use issues and the status of
local, state and federal laws, which are all over the map on the
subject. Recent and forthcoming court decisions add another layer of
buzzkill to a Palo Alto resident looking for a little clarity in the
voting booth.

Palo Alto's marijuana measure landed on the November ballot after a
citizens' petition collected more than 4,800 signatures last year. The
measure was spearheaded by Ronald Reagan adviser Thomas Gale Moore and
Cassandra Chrones Moore, who argued in their notice of intent that
legalizing marijuana is both the humane and economically sensible
thing to do. The measure would establish a 4 percent tax on gross
receipts from the dispensaries, which city officials estimate would
bring in about $40,000 in annual revenues.

Peter Allen, spokesman for the Measure C campaign, said the Palo Alto
measure was crafted after consideration of various other marijuana
ordinances, including those recently adopted in Los Angeles and San
Jose. The ordinance in San Jose was suspended last year after a
coalition that included dispensary operators succeeded in pushing
through a referendum that would have expanded the number of allowed
dispensaries from 10 to 25 and modified some of the regulations in the
original ordinance.

The San Jose City Council responded to the referendum by suspending
the city's prior ordinance, though some dispensaries continue to
operate in the city. Los Angeles has also gone back and forth on the
topic of dispensaries, with the City Council ultimately deciding in
July to ban them.

While Palo Alto voters have been generally sympathetic to legalizing
marijuana, as evidenced by the majority vote to support Proposition
215 in 1996, the City Council has been fiercely opposing Measure C.
Last month, the council voted unanimously to support a colleagues'
memo from Mayor Yiaway Yeh, Vice Mayor Greg Scharff and Councilman
Larry Klein formally opposing the measure.

The Palo Alto council is joined in its opposition to Measure C by a
coalition of former mayors, including Gary Fazzino, Lanie Wheeler,
Dena Mossar and Liz Kniss. The pro-Measure C campaign, meanwhile, has
been relying on paid consultants to boost its chances. According to
campaign-finance statements filed last week, the campaign is more than
$76,000 in debt after spending $82,216 on campaign-related activities.
This includes a $56,134 balance with the law firm DLA Piper, LLP, and
the $13,500 the campaign had spent on polling services from the firm
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates.

The memo from Yeh, Scharff and Klein briefly mentions marijuana in
connection to drug addiction (which, they write, "can lead to poor
school performance, job loss and serious medical problem"), but
focuses largely on the murky legal issues. The most significant of
these is the contradiction between federal law, which bans marijuana,
and state law, which allows it for medical purposes.

"The establishment and regulation of medical dispensaries has been the
subject of extensive litigation, and there are several cases pending
between the California Supreme Court relating to the cities' ability
to permit, regulate or ban medical marijuana dispensaries," the memo
states. "If the City issues permits for marijuana to be grown and sold
within the City of Palo Alto, it is unclear what the legal
ramifications of this could be."

In recent months, state courts have been considering three different
cases centered on whether a city can ban marijuana without violating
state law. A ruling on these is expected later this year or early next
year, City Attorney Molly Stump said. On the flip side of the coin,
the state Supreme Court had also considered a Long Beach case
centering on whether a state can legalize and regulate marijuana
without violating federal law. The state's highest court ultimately
declined to issue a ruling on this issue, which essentially upheld a
prior ruling from an appeals court. That court concluded that the Long
Beach ordinance, by regulating the dispensaries, is effectively
permitting them in violation of federal law.

The council has also found the legal argument more convincing than the
traditional health argument in stressing its opposition to Measure C.
Councilman Pat Burt and Councilwoman Gail Price both distanced
themselves from the memo's characterization of marijuana's effects,
though they agreed with the memo's other arguments for opposing
Measure C and joined their colleagues in the vote. In a recent debate
over the measure sponsored by the Midpeninsula Community Media Center,
Klein painted the debate over the measure as one that should occur far
beyond the local level.

"This is not about legalization of marijuana," Klein said. "If that
was the issue, we need to have that done in a far more comprehensive
way -- at the federal level, at the state level. It's not a Palo Alto
issue by itself."

At the same time, city officials argue the measure's passage would
have a significant local impact. Because surrounding cities all ban
dispensaries, Palo Alto would become a magnet for pot-related
activities. Scharff said allowing dispensaries would lead to increased
enforcement activities and a flurry of complaints about pot smoking,
harassment of passersby and smoking too close to schools. And even if
the dispensaries prove disruptive, Scharff said, the city would be
legally obligated to allow three permits.

"No matter how many problems these pot shops cause, the city will be
required to continue to allow them to operate regardless of their
impacts," Scharff said at the recent debate. "Measure C will bring the
sale and cultivation of marijuana to our neighborhoods and our kids."

Proponents of the measure dismiss this argument as a scare tactic with
no basis in truth. Allen noted in a recent interview with the Weekly
that the ordinance severely restricts the locations where the
dispensaries would be allowed. Specifically, they would be prohibited
within 150 feet of any residential zone, within 600 feet of any school
and within 500 feet of any public library, public park, day care
center or substance-abuse rehabilitation center.

"What this will do is allow residents of Palo Alto the option of
getting medicine locally instead of having to drive to San Francisco
or San Jose," Allen told the Weekly. "I do not think it will have any
ill effects in Palo Alto."

Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample
and sign-up for Express.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt