"Medical Marijuana"
Last night the City Council tackled the controversial topic of marijuana -- and came to a unanimous vote on a cautious direction forward.Feelings run deep on this issue -- from die-hard advocates of legalization to opponents who warn of the dire consequences of widespread acceptance of a third major drug in a society that already pays sky-high costs for alcohol and tobacco usage.
The local angle is a narrow, but contentious one. Federal law continues to prohibit the possession, use and sale of cannibas, although the new Administration has taken a softer line on enforcement. California voters, however, approved Proposition 215 which opened a window for "compassionate use" of "medical marijuana" for the "seriously ill."
That law, like many voter-approved initiatives, contains ambiguous fine print. The result has been an upsurge in thinly disguised drug emporiums called "medical marijuana dispensaries." Nearly 1000 have opened in Los Angeles, using a loophole in a moratorium passed by their City Council. Commercial business distribution is simply not allowed under Proposition 215 -- but the amount of money involved has overwhelmed the technicality of their illegality. Beyond cultivation by doctor-authorized "patients" and their "primary caregiver" -- the only allowed distribution under State law is the somewhat loosely defined concept of a "co-op" or "collective," Those names imply non-commercial, non-profit exchange amongst patients and their caregivers, but the limits of such a model are fairly elastic. The sports equipment retailer REI, for example, is a "co-op" with more than a billion in sales and stores in 27 states.
The other major cities have imposed moratoria on all "medical marijuana" land uses. Despite the fact that there is no legal zone for them in Ventura either, pressure has been building from those who would like to provide "medical marijuana" to local "patients."
We brought City Council four options: do nothing different, which means continue the de facto moratorium; craft regulations that would allow bona fide "co-ops"; follow the lead of cities like Oakland and Santa Barbara and regulate "medical marijuana dispensaries" despite their illegal status under Federal and State law; or join the other Ventura County cities in imposing a formal moratorium on such uses.
A score of local residents and out-of-town "medical marijuana" advocates spoke to the Council, attracting LA television news crews. After a thoughtful discussion, the Council voted unanimously for the option of a moratorium. But the maker of that motion, Councilmember Ed Summers, also included a call to look at the option of regulating bona fide "co-ops." Mayor Weir and Councilmember Monahan favored moving toward an outright ban. Despite the very difficult challenge of crafting and enforcing local rules, a majority of the Council favored exploring that alternative.
There are no easy answers. But Ventura is moving forward to tackle a contentious issue and find a legal and sensible way to navigate among the conflicting State and Federal laws governing "medical marijuana."
posted by Rick Cole at
11:03 AM
5 Comments:
First of all, Marijuana is not a "drug" no matter what the federal government says. Comparing Marijuana with alcohol and tobacco is a ridiculous, old school, unintelligent, comparison. There are countless examples of health related issues with both alcohol and tobacco including death. There has never been any examples of either with the use of Marijuana.
Secondly the only ambiguous fine print in Proposition 215 is in the minds of brainwashed people that have listened to and believed such trash as "Reefer Madness".
As far as there being "no easy answers" if, lord willing and the creeks don't rise, you won't have to worry about it much longer when the legalization ballot is voted in.
First, I note the sarcasm clearly intended by quoted terms such as "patients" and "medical marijuana", and point out that this makes it clear you are less than open-minded on this topic. As a long-term sufferer of anxiety attacks, I find that my use of marijuana definitely has medical benefits, and I have not had a single attack in the 2 1/2 years since I started using it. Yes, I readily admit that I also enjoy it simply for its own sake, but is this really such a bad thing?
Decades ago, society came to terms with the fact that people can't reasonably be prevented from using alcohol, as long as they do so responsibly. And this is despite its lack of health benefits (red wine excluded). So why is it that people have so many concerns about marijuana, a substance with less negative impact than alcohol? For example, I've never seen someone stoned on the street in front of a dispensary, belligerently harassing passersby. Yet this is a problem that liquor store owners and police normally encounter as part of the alcohol trade.
Whatever potential problems we may face with the legal sale of marijuana, they are nothing we haven't already addressed with alcohol. And as it was with Prohibition, we will find that those problems are fewer and less threatening than the ones posed by trying to keep it illegal.
Delaying tactics like those in use by the Ventura City Council will eventually backfire. At some point, one of our neighbor cities will get smart and harness the potential revenues from dispensaries if we don't do it first. And it's not as if we couldn't use the money.
Before Ventura city council makes their cannibis (not cannibas, Mr. Cole) dispensaries moratorium permanent, I would advise that they contact experts on the issue with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) to have explained to them the dangers of prohibition. Of ANY commodity in popular demand.
To refuse to legalize and regulate the purity and potency of such substances, in addition to encouraging criminal gang distribution of illegal drugs, is a public health issue.
Overdoses are not caused (in most cases) by an actual overdose of the drug (unless in cases of suicide), they are caused by the poisons cut into the illegal drugs.
Marijuana dispensaries would be put out of business should they distribute poison-tainted products.
Legalization (or should I say repeal of Prohibition) of illegal drugs is the responsible thing to do in many different ways, from public health to public safety to releasing scarce public safety resources to allow law enforcement to concentrate their efforts on fighting real crime as opposed to the 'business crimes' of busting people for buying or selling products.
Finally, legalizing the sale of drugs does not let street dealers off the hook.
Street dealers with their tainted, unregulated products would still be criminal distributors of now counterfeit products, and all of their illegal actions associated with street gang distribution of illegal drugs would still be illegal and enforceable.
The tax revenues raised by legal distribution of marijuana and even other legalized drugs, would help law enforcement crack down on the street dealers of illegal drugs and on other criminal behavior, and would of course help the city pay for so many other things.
For more information, please contact Law Enforcement Against Prohibition at www.leap.cc
LEAP Bob
Well VenturaKevin and LEAPBob already said it best but I feel I must interject that I agree Rick Cole approaches this article with a condescending tone. Regardless of opinion the actual facts remain, and can not be denied. It's been over a decade since we voted yes on 215. As a member of the military and potential fighter in the war on drugs, I would love to see marijuana not be a reason to put someone behind bars. Thank you Rick, I will be watching you.
Notwithstanding the opinions of the various commmenters on legalization, the law remains unchanged at the Federal level. California voters did not legalize marijuana usage. Instead, they approved compassionate use for the seriously ill. Reasonable people can disagree about how broad this measure was. It certainly was sold as applying to terminally ill cancer patients, AIDS patients and glaucoma sufferers, although opponents did argue that it had big loopholes that would allow much broader interpretation. That is at issue now. Proponents of legalization understandably want to push that as far as they can. But until the laws are changed, we'll have to abide by them. The Ventura Council clearly signalled a desire to facilitate access under the terms of Proposition 215 without inviting in the proliferation of profit-making marijuana dispensaries that goes well beyond the letter of what voters approved -- and directly contradicts the letter of other laws already on the books. That's why there are no easy answers -- until and unless society decides through legislation or citizen initiative that, indeed, marijuana should be legalized.
Post a Comment
<< Home