Pubdate: Tue, 28 Oct 2014
Source: San Diego City Beat (CA)
Copyright: 2014 San Diego City Beat
Contact:  http://www.sdcitybeat.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2764
Author: Aaryn Belfer
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)

ENCINITAS' PROP. F AND THE DISPENSARIES

Let's Move This Time Machine to 2014, Shall We?

I suffer from election fatigue, thanks to the constant barrage of
campaigning, the devious tactics of politicians and
signature-gatherers, the endless pamphleting, the calls asking for
money. (Please, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee: Quit
asking me to help Al Franken. The answer will always be no, unless
the all-powerful electeds want to pay for my kid's college education,
which means properly funding our public schools so they can properly
educate kids in the first place.)

The never-ending election cycle has largely become white noise for me,
and I've mostly quit paying attention. Mostly. I do know about the
scoundrel and palm pilot Carl DeMaio. And I know about Proposition F,
the medical-marijuana initiative in Encinitas.

No, I don't live anywhere near Encinitas. But a lovely, graceful,
terrific writer friend of mine does, and, last week, she--a cancer
survivor and user of medicinal marijuana herself--drafted a lovely,
graceful, terrific letter to some local publications about Prop. F.
More specifically, it was about her opposition to it.

And her beautifully presented two-fold argument? She doesn't want her
children walking past a dispensary on their way to school, and
dispensaries are not on her list of "businesses that make for a
vibrant community."

Now, I highly respect, admire and am often in agreement with this
friend on many issues. But Jesus Lord, Mary, Joseph and Great Scott.
What year is this, 1936?

That was the year that FDR--campaigning on the popularity of the New
Deal--creamed his Republican opponent to win reelection. It was the
year Jesse Owens upset Hitler's Aryan superiority contest by winning
four gold medals at the Berlin Olympics. It was the year stress was
first recognized as a medical condition. And, perhaps not ironically,
it was the year Reefer Madness was released.

While engaging in a very civil online dialogue with my friend and
others, and even as she was calm and clear in her own defense, she
echoed for me the swirly eyed hysteria portrayed in the film,
reminding me of a story my husband once told me: A college friend of
his was in an argument with her mother, who said, at the height of
frustration, "And don't think I don't know that you're upstairs
smoking the bonks!" He and his friend busted up laughing because, of
course, they'd been smoking the bonks.

My friend reminded me of the bonk mom, and let me say here that she is
no bonk mom.

Admittedly, I can understand that a dispensary isn't adding to her
quaint beachside community in the way a restaurant or boutique would.
I'm not obtuse; I've seen what dispensaries are like in my community,
and they're not exactly vying for any orchid awards or
neighborhood-improvement shout-outs at this juncture. But my friend
tiptoes dangerously close to NIMBY boundaries when she urges that such
establishments be located in more industrial areas.

I'm not going to get into the possibly coded (even if unintended)
language about which neighborhoods are more appropriate for
dispensaries; there's enough to unpack there for it's own column. But
were Prop. F to be approved, Encinitas could dictate what a dispensary
looks like and how it contributes to, rather than detracts from, a
community.

Which is all to say, I can relate to this position far more than I can
her Helen Lovejoy attitude.

A building with weed inside is, to my friend, a metaphorical welcome
mat for The Children. Additionally, the young adults she's seen buying
weed in the dispensary aren't buying the medicinal kind of weed, and
she'd prefer her kids don't have to lay eyeballs on such stoners. That
basically means she'll need to steer clear of North County surfers.

And to be consistent in her I-don't-want-my-kid-exposed-to-unsightliness
stance, she would have to also be wary of exposure to the alcohol sold
in the aisles of Target. And the grocery store. And gas stations. And
that which her kids see adults consuming.

The reality is that having legally regulated pot dispensaries in a
community is not going to equate to little kids suddenly digging into
their weekly allowance to fund the purchase of a dime bag (is there
even such a thing any more?), just as they aren't purchasing Mike's
Hard Lemonade because it's on the shelf in the store. Neither is it
going to make any of it more accessible than it already is.

The key here is to legally regulate weed just like we legally regulate
alcohol. And then have parents do that parenting thing called
parenting and talk (openly and frequently) to our young'uns about
drugs and alcohol, about their impact and about making good choices.

My friend doesn't disagree with me on the latter point, but she really
believes that dispensaries near her community will somehow change the
equation with deleterious effects. "The science on this is clear," she
said. "Marijuana affects the developing brain in potentially serious
ways."

This may be true, but the science is also clear that there's no
benefit to assigning homework in elementary school and that it is, in
fact, harmful to kids, causing them "stress, physical health problems,
a lack of balance and even alienation from society," according to a
recent Stanford study of roughly 4,300 students. "Are you going to
write letters to the editors about that?" I asked.

Fortunately, there are many treatments for stress and physical health
problems and whatnot, pharmaceuticals being a popular choice; the
bonks should be a legal alternative, and regulated dispensaries should
be a part of that equation.

If the science is clear, the kids and I are going to need it.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard