|
Fulfilling a promise made by the City Council, Sacramento held its first stakeholder’s meeting for the local medical marijuana community. The September 21, 2009 meeting was billed alternately as a, “Community and Stakeholder Outreach Meeting,” and a, “Medical Marijuana Ordinance Stakeholders Meeting.”
Whether the community at large was truly welcome at this meeting is debatable.
There was no notice of this meeting on the City’s official website, cityofsacramento.org. One cannabis advocate was told by city staff that she may not attend the meeting, because it was for, “dispensary operators only.”
On the morning of the meeting, I called City Council Member Steve Cohn’s office. I asked if there were any medicinal cannabis ordinance stakeholder’s meetings scheduled. The clerk said no, not that she was aware of. She offered to call me back if she heard anything. I gave her my phone number, but she never did call back.
My next step was to try the City Clerk. She confirmed that, yes, the meeting was to be held that night, from 6 to 8:30pm, at Old City Hall. I inquired as to whether this was an open or closed meeting, and she said she wasn’t sure. She inquired as to whether or not I had seen, “the flier,” to which I replied in the negative. Upon reading the text of the flier, the clerk concluded that she wasn’t sure whether the public at large was invited to this meeting or not.
While I do not operate a medical marijuana dispensary, I did attend the meeting, and was welcomed by the warm crowd. The medium-sized group was dominated by dispensary operators, but there were also some cannabis advocates, patients, and community leaders present.
The official city facilitators of the meeting were Project Manager Michelle Heppner, Assistant City Manager Gus Vina, and Council Member Sandy Sheedy. This three member panel fielded all inquiries from the crowd, and directed the meeting from start to finish.
Commencing promptly at 6pm, Assistant City Manager Gus Vina began by laying out the basic strategy of their ordinance drafting procedure. With the caveat that this was just a general timeline, and that these dates were not set in stone, Vina estimated that the city’s Law & Legislation Committee would hear the matter sometime around November, 2009. A first draft of an ordinance would hopefully be prepared by that point. Then, a second, and final stakeholder’s meeting would be held to solicit final input from the public. If all goes well, at this time, estimated to be possibly around January, or February of 2010, the completed draft will be submitted to the full City Council for a vote. If a majority of the nine member City Council approves the ordinance, it will become law.
Vina Surrendered the floor to Project Manager Michelle Heppner, who outlined a simple, but elegant 3 step plan to solicit advice from a crowd with diverse interests. Participants were instructed to write down their, “best practices to INCLUDE in the final ordinance, issues or concerns to avoid,” and any other ideas.
Several dozen people attended. Some seats were vacant, so I was able to easily sit in the front row, even though I arrived just as the meeting was beginning. A handheld microphone was passed around the audience, and all comments were recorded.
By default of my seating choice, I ended up being the first audience speaker. I suggested 2 changes to the definition of dispensary in the City’s moratorium. Their definition states, “For purposes of this Ordinance, the term “medical marijuana dispensa (sic) means any for profit or non-profit facility, building, structure or location, whether fixed, mobile, permanent or temporary, where a person(s) makes available, sells, gives, distributes, or otherwise provides medical marijuana to at least two or more of the following persons: a primary caregiver, a qualified patient, or a person with an identification card in strict accordance with California Health and Safety Code sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 et seq. A “medical marijuana dispensary” includes medical marijuana “cooperatives” and “collectives.”
I suggested changing the, “two or more” people clause to “ten or more” persons, and/or adding the words, “who operate a storefront dispensary,” to the end of the definition.
Lanette Davies, representing the Sacramento chapter of Americans for Safe Access (ASA) identified items that her group agreed were essential to properly functioning dispensaries. This included surveillance cameras, alarm systems, and security guards.
Several times audience members had questions for the panel. They were answered almost uniformly the same way. City staff said that the purpose of the meeting was to solicit opinions from the stakeholders, not for staff to offer their own opinions. This had a duel effect. It engendered a sense that the stakeholders were genuinely being listened to, and taken seriously. This was good. But it also gave the subtle appearance that they may not have answers to potentially sticky questions.
Mickey Martin, appearing on behalf of the Medical Cannabis Safety Commission, pointed out that most dispensaries keep less inventory on hand than a Best Buy, and conduct less financial transactions than a grocery store.
Collective director and long time ASA advocate Aundre Speciale urged the City to work closely with ASA in developing its ordinance. She stated that she is absolutely against any special or “sin” taxes for medical marijuana, arguing that it would hurt the patients.
Land use attorney James Anthony advised that imposing a fixed number on the amount of dispensaries allowed could prove problematic. Pointing out that taxation is quite controversial, he offered an alternative suggestion. Instead of a direct tax, he suggested asking the dispensaries what they plan on doing to give back to the community.
Paula Horak from Doctor’s Orders advised that dispensaries should have a safe on site to keep their cash and medicine in. She said professional security companies should be used, because they are properly trained. She also discouraged the hiring of felons.
With a flair, Keith Kimber revealed that he had a dispensary ordinance already written, which he promptly submitted to the panel.
Patient/advocate Ryan Landers said that he wanted language that was friendly to collective patient gardens. He said that every single definition of dispensary in the state is illegal.
Representing the Sacramento Association of Collectives, a mysterious new group that has not yet publicly released any information about themselves, Bill Pearce lamented that it was sadly disappointing how many people just don’t come to their meetings, which are open to collective operators only.
Patient and collective operator Ted Smith commented that the ordinance must properly distinguish between collectives and storefront dispensaries.
Reminding the panel that many dispensaries have outstanding offers to give tours of their facilities to policy makers, Ryan Landers admonished the panel, “Don’t go to a community workshop and try and answer questions about things you’ve never seen.”
To counter Paula Horak’s comment about felons, Keith Kimber argued that hiring felons is a good thing, It could keep them productively working, instead of on the streets creating crime, reasoned Kimber.
I complained that the event was sorely underadvertised. Michelle Heppner replied that she had sent a mailer to the local daily newspaper the Sacramento Bee, as well as the City’s community newsletter.
Council Member Sandy Sheedy said that 39 dispensaries in the City was an awful lot. She confessed that her mother had cancer, and that she has lots of cancer in the family. She said that she understands the need for medical marijuana, and that it does what it is supposed to do. “Bottom line is,” said Sheedy, “you’re all illegal. And we’ve got to make it so you’re not illegal. Nothing’s a secret in Sacramento. You should be out in the open. The ordinance will be fair, but some won’t like it. The first draft in November definitely won’t be perfect. But the final ordinance will be something we can all live with.”
Heppner asked interested parties to submit comments to her directly via email. I sent in my suggestions. Here is what I had to say:
The definition of dispensary in the new ordinance needs to be fair, and must properly separate true storefront operations from small families of 3 or more people who are patients, 3 or more roommates who are patients, and, of course, collectives and cooperatives that do not run storefront dispensaries. I propose that, if a numerical threshold is used, that around 10 would be more reasonable than "2 or more." Two or more is far too encompassing, and will ensnare many innocent families and households by improperly labeling them as a dispensary. Second, I propose that the words, "who operate a storefront dispensary," be added to the end of the definition. This would help to differentiate between retail outlets, and closed groups of patients and caregivers who do not sell marijuana. Third, I have reviewed the definition proposed by Keith Kimber, and would not oppose the Council if it opted to use Kimber's definition.
I oppose any numerical limit on the amount of dispensaries permitted. The Council should permit or deny applications based on their relative merits, not arbitrary numbers. Also, any zoning limitations will effectively limit the number of facilities allowed to remain anyway, so a further restriction on amount of dispensaries permitted based solely on the number would be redundant.
Stakeholder's meetings should be truly public, and should follow all Brown Act guidelines. I would specifically request that a prominent notice of the next stakeholder's meeting be posted on cityofsacramento.org.
I oppose any effort to limit dispensary's proximity to places of worship. Churches, synagogues etc. must be free to express their first amendment rights, and that includes ministering to the sick by interfacing directly with cannabis collectives.
I do not oppose limiting dispensary's proximity to schools, as long as colleges and adult schools are excluded. If there must be a minimum distance away from schools and/or youth centers, I would suggest 500 feet.
Collective cultivation must be permitted in accordance with the Medical Marijuana Program. Dispensaries must be able to grow their own, as well as provide seeds and starter plants to their members.
Smoking and/or vaporization of cannabis should be expressly permitted in dispensaries that choose to allow it. Ideally the dispensary should be a refuge of sorts for the patient. He or she should be able to consume cannabis on premises, and stay long enough for the effects to wear off, in order to get home safely. This will help keep cannabis smoke away from those who do not want to be around it.
Sales of related items, such as delivery devices like pipes, waterpipes, rolling papers and vaporizers should be allowed. Patients should not be forced to go to a whole other establishment, just to get the items they need, with which to take their medicine.
Inspection procedures must be reasonable, and non-invasive. HIPPA protections must be fully guarded. Names and addresses of bulk suppliers of cannabis cannot be provided due to federal legal risk.
I thank the City for taking a reasonable approach to this issue. And I share Sandy Sheedy's optimism that, at the end of this process, we will end up with an ordinance we can all live with.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed