http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/nyregion/24marijuana.html?_r=1&hpw
Five months before its new medical marijuana law is set to take effect, New Jersey this week moved further away from having answers to basic questions about how the law will work — specifically, who will grow the marijuana and who will dispense it.
Gov. Chris Christie’s administration had been pursuing a plan to make Rutgers University the only approved cultivator of cannabis, and to make teaching hospitals the only places where patients could get it.
But on Thursday, Rutgers announced that it would not participate for fear of losing grants from the federal government. State officials said the hospitals had the same concern.
State laws legalizing medical marijuana are at odds with federal law. The Obama administration has stopped the practice of raiding marijuana dispensaries in those states, but the Drug Enforcement Administration remains reluctant to grant permission to grow the plants, even for medical research.
“This is genuinely something we were interested in doing,” said Robert M. Goodman, the executive dean of agriculture and natural resources at Rutgers. “We have agricultural stations; we have programs in medicinally reactive plants, in chemical biology, in pharmacy. It’s a potential new crop for the state, and we’re interested in promoting the state’s economy.”
But, he added, “it just puts too much at risk,” jeopardizing research grants, contracts, student aid or other funds from Washington.
Fourteen states have passed laws allowing medical use of marijuana, but New Jersey’s, signed in January, is in some ways the strictest. The law was written to prevent the proliferation of growers and dispensaries seen in states like California and Colorado, at first limiting the state to six dispensaries run by nonprofits, and it prohibits patients from growing the plants themselves.
New Jersey allows doctors to prescribe marijuana only for patients with terminal illness or a fairly limited set of specific, chronic conditions, and limits each person to two ounces per month, compared with as much as 24 ounces in other states.
Governor Christie, a Republican who took office days after the law was enacted, has sought to make it still more restrictive in the way it is carried out. The administration is supposed to put regulations in place for carrying out the law by Oct. 1, and the law is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1.
Michael Drewniak, the governor’s chief spokesman, said Friday that the administration still expected to have dispensaries ready to open in 2011.
“As we’ve said all along, we’ve been considering other options beyond the Rutgers plan,” Mr. Drewniak said, “and we will continue working diligently to implement a high-quality and secure program.” He declined to elaborate.
The governor is angry about the university’s decision, according to officials who were granted anonymity to comment on private discussions, and so are some legislators. Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Democrat from Mercer County who was one of the primary sponsors of the legalization bill, said “the university is chickening out” by not testing federal authorities’ willingness to grant a waiver.
State Senator Nicholas P. Scutari, a Democrat from Linden who was the other main sponsor, said that Mr. Christie wanted too much control over the program and that the state would have no choice but to approve private growers.
“We’ve known this was going to be a concern for Rutgers from the get-go, but the administration indicated no, it’s not going to be a problem,” Mr. Scutari said. And the hospitals, he said, “have got the same exact issue.”
The New Jersey Council of Teaching Hospitals declined to comment, but several people briefed on the discussions said the hospitals wanted some kind of guarantee that they would not be jeopardizing federal money.
Mr. Christie has said he had concerns about how to carry out the law with enough security. At his request, the Legislature delayed putting the law into effect for 90 days.
The plan to use Rutgers and teaching hospitals would have given the state far more direct control over the program than the Legislature intended, but for the most part, lawmakers said they were amenable to the idea if it would work.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
California ACLU Affiliates Endorse Prop 19
For Immediate Release: July 22, 2010
Contact: Laura Saponara, ACLU-NC, 415.621.2493
California ACLU Affiliates Endorse Proposition 19's Move Toward a Rational Marijuana Policy
LOS ANGELES, Calif. - The California affiliates of the American Civil Liberties Union today announced their endorsement of Proposition 19, the initiative on the November 2010 ballot that would allow state regulation of marijuana.
Enforcement of marijuana prohibition consumes a great deal of California's law enforcement and court system resources, and has a disproportionate impact on communities of color. Proposition 19 would allow adults age 21 and older to possess and grow small amounts of their own marijuana for personal use, and would allow cities and counties to regulate and tax commercial sales. Unless individual cities and counties enact local regulatory structures, marijuana sale would remain illegal under state law.
The three California affiliates of the ACLU have 96,000 members combined and join a broad coalition supporting Proposition 19's common sense approach to controlling marijuana. Supporters of the initiative include former U.S. Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders, the California NAACP, labor unions, and law enforcement officials from around the state.
In 2008, California police made 60,000 marijuana possession arrests, the majority of them young men of color. The arrests, however, do not indicate actual marijuana usage. A new report from the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) reveals distinct racial disparities in California arrests for low-level marijuana possession. Data in the report reveal that African Americans in California are more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, but more white youth use marijuana than black youth.
"California makes tens of thousands of arrests each year for simply possessing small amounts of marijuana. These arrests overload our already stressed courts and jails and divert scarce public safety dollars that could be used to address violent crime," said Kelli M. Evans, associate director at the ACLU of Northern California.
The California Legislative Analyst's Office cites that Proposition 19 would allow "redirection of court and law enforcement resources to solving violent crimes."
"The significant racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests have serious consequences, for young men of color in particular. The impact of a misdemeanor conviction for marijuana possession creates barriers in finding a house, a job, and even a school loan," said Ramona Ripston, ACLU/SC executive director.
In Los Angeles County alone, the marijuana possession arrest rate of African Americans is more than 300% higher than the same arrest rate of whites, although blacks made up less than 10% of the county's population, according to the DPA report.
"Proposition 19 is smart policy that would regulate and tax marijuana for adults, just like alcohol and tobacco," said Kevin Keenan, executive director of the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties.
Contact: Laura Saponara, ACLU-NC, 415.621.2493
California ACLU Affiliates Endorse Proposition 19's Move Toward a Rational Marijuana Policy
LOS ANGELES, Calif. - The California affiliates of the American Civil Liberties Union today announced their endorsement of Proposition 19, the initiative on the November 2010 ballot that would allow state regulation of marijuana.
Enforcement of marijuana prohibition consumes a great deal of California's law enforcement and court system resources, and has a disproportionate impact on communities of color. Proposition 19 would allow adults age 21 and older to possess and grow small amounts of their own marijuana for personal use, and would allow cities and counties to regulate and tax commercial sales. Unless individual cities and counties enact local regulatory structures, marijuana sale would remain illegal under state law.
The three California affiliates of the ACLU have 96,000 members combined and join a broad coalition supporting Proposition 19's common sense approach to controlling marijuana. Supporters of the initiative include former U.S. Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders, the California NAACP, labor unions, and law enforcement officials from around the state.
In 2008, California police made 60,000 marijuana possession arrests, the majority of them young men of color. The arrests, however, do not indicate actual marijuana usage. A new report from the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) reveals distinct racial disparities in California arrests for low-level marijuana possession. Data in the report reveal that African Americans in California are more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, but more white youth use marijuana than black youth.
"California makes tens of thousands of arrests each year for simply possessing small amounts of marijuana. These arrests overload our already stressed courts and jails and divert scarce public safety dollars that could be used to address violent crime," said Kelli M. Evans, associate director at the ACLU of Northern California.
The California Legislative Analyst's Office cites that Proposition 19 would allow "redirection of court and law enforcement resources to solving violent crimes."
"The significant racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests have serious consequences, for young men of color in particular. The impact of a misdemeanor conviction for marijuana possession creates barriers in finding a house, a job, and even a school loan," said Ramona Ripston, ACLU/SC executive director.
In Los Angeles County alone, the marijuana possession arrest rate of African Americans is more than 300% higher than the same arrest rate of whites, although blacks made up less than 10% of the county's population, according to the DPA report.
"Proposition 19 is smart policy that would regulate and tax marijuana for adults, just like alcohol and tobacco," said Kevin Keenan, executive director of the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Voters asked to expand Oregon's medical marijuana law
EUGENE, Ore. - Oregon voters will decide in November if the state should have dispensaries to sell medical marijuana.
Supporters of the idea gathered enough signatures to put the issue on the November ballot.
Alice Ivany, who lives near Newport, was one of the chief petitioners for the initiative. She said marijuana has totally improved the quality of her life. "It works for pain like no other medication out there," she said.
It will be up to voters to decide if Oregon's medical marijuana act should be expanded. Ivany said the original law in Oregon didn't go far enough.
"As wonderful as the original act is, it still was fatally flawed in that it did not allow safe, legal access for patients to obtain medical cannabis," she said.
She believes a regulated medical marijuana supply, sold in dispensaries, will be much safer for Oregonians. "Not only are you exposed to dangerous people but you don't know exactly what you're getting," she said. "The medicine could be tainted with other drugs."
Oregonians right now are required to grow their own marijuana or have to find someone to do it for them. They are also limited to 6 mature plants and 24 ounces of marijuana. If voters approve the ballot measure in November, patients could buy their pot at a dispensary or continue to grow their own - as long as they have a license.
The new law would allow dispensaries to have 24 plants and 96 ounces of marijuana, and the state would regulate sales. The dispensaries could not be located within 1,000 feet of a school or in a residential area.
If voters say no, the state's medical marijuana law will stay as it is. This is not the first time the issue has been up for a vote in Oregon. Voters rejected a measure to set up dispensaries back in 2004.
KVAL News talked to foes of the measure. Hear why they oppose dispensaries on KVAL 13 TV News Friday night and on KVAL.com.
Supporters of the idea gathered enough signatures to put the issue on the November ballot.
Alice Ivany, who lives near Newport, was one of the chief petitioners for the initiative. She said marijuana has totally improved the quality of her life. "It works for pain like no other medication out there," she said.
It will be up to voters to decide if Oregon's medical marijuana act should be expanded. Ivany said the original law in Oregon didn't go far enough.
"As wonderful as the original act is, it still was fatally flawed in that it did not allow safe, legal access for patients to obtain medical cannabis," she said.
She believes a regulated medical marijuana supply, sold in dispensaries, will be much safer for Oregonians. "Not only are you exposed to dangerous people but you don't know exactly what you're getting," she said. "The medicine could be tainted with other drugs."
Oregonians right now are required to grow their own marijuana or have to find someone to do it for them. They are also limited to 6 mature plants and 24 ounces of marijuana. If voters approve the ballot measure in November, patients could buy their pot at a dispensary or continue to grow their own - as long as they have a license.
The new law would allow dispensaries to have 24 plants and 96 ounces of marijuana, and the state would regulate sales. The dispensaries could not be located within 1,000 feet of a school or in a residential area.
If voters say no, the state's medical marijuana law will stay as it is. This is not the first time the issue has been up for a vote in Oregon. Voters rejected a measure to set up dispensaries back in 2004.
KVAL News talked to foes of the measure. Hear why they oppose dispensaries on KVAL 13 TV News Friday night and on KVAL.com.
19.25% TAX on MEDICATION!!!!!
Link: http://sanjosecannabis.org/2010/07/23/san-jose-city-council-meeting-august-3-10/
The City of San Jose is trying to put in place a 10% SALES TAX in
addition to the states 9.25% sales tax.. Taxing medication in SJ at
19.25%!
With a survey of less then 800 "likely voters," of which over 50% were
over 45-White/Caucasians, and 80% lived in single family homes, the
city of San Jose has come to the conclusion that a 10% sales tax for
medical cannabis is appropriate. The survey they used is both
confusing and misleading. This is another attempt by the powers at be
to chase medical cannabis out of San Jose. A 19.25% tax would drive
medical patients back to the streets, where no tax is charged or out
of town for their medication
San Jose's goal is to place the 10% tax on the November Ballot, at the
next city council meeting August 3rd, 2010
Review the survey & potential ballot measures yourself:
SURVEY OF POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURES:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/20100803/20100803_0303a.pdf
MEMO: MARIJUANA BUSINESS TAX BALLOT MEASURE:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/20100803/20100803_0303c.pdf
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL: A BALLOT MEASURE PROPOSAL TO TAX MARIJUANA:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/20100803/20100803_0303cres.pdf
The Marijuana Business Tax Measure is item 3.3.c of the Agenda
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AUGUST 3, 2010 Agenda:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/20100803/20100803a.pdf
The City of San Jose is trying to put in place a 10% SALES TAX in
addition to the states 9.25% sales tax.. Taxing medication in SJ at
19.25%!
With a survey of less then 800 "likely voters," of which over 50% were
over 45-White/Caucasians, and 80% lived in single family homes, the
city of San Jose has come to the conclusion that a 10% sales tax for
medical cannabis is appropriate. The survey they used is both
confusing and misleading. This is another attempt by the powers at be
to chase medical cannabis out of San Jose. A 19.25% tax would drive
medical patients back to the streets, where no tax is charged or out
of town for their medication
San Jose's goal is to place the 10% tax on the November Ballot, at the
next city council meeting August 3rd, 2010
Review the survey & potential ballot measures yourself:
SURVEY OF POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURES:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/20100803/20100803_0303a.pdf
MEMO: MARIJUANA BUSINESS TAX BALLOT MEASURE:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/20100803/20100803_0303c.pdf
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL: A BALLOT MEASURE PROPOSAL TO TAX MARIJUANA:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/20100803/20100803_0303cres.pdf
The Marijuana Business Tax Measure is item 3.3.c of the Agenda
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AUGUST 3, 2010 Agenda:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/20100803/20100803a.pdf
Friday, July 23, 2010
Christie’s making medical marijuana unworkable for New Jersey’s patients
http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/commentary/christies-making-medical-marijuana-unworkable-for-new-jerseys-patients
The Christie administration is contemplating making the nation's most restrictive medical marijuana law even more restrictive. Lawmakers do so at the expense of patients' well being.
To review: in January, after years of debate, outgoing Democrat Governor Jon Corzine signed legislation making New Jersey the fourteenth state in the nation to allow for the state-authorized use of medical cannabis by qualified patients. The measure, known as The New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, authorizes select patients with a physician's recommendation to possess and obtain medical cannabis from up to six state-authorized "alternative treatment centers." Unlike the laws in thirteen others states, state-qualified patients are not legally permitted to grow their own marijuana, nor are they allowed to legally consume marijuana to mitigate the symptoms of chronic painful conditions.
Yet these safeguards apparently provide little comfort to Gov. Chris Christie. Recently, the Governor has proposed amending state law so that patients would only be eligible to obtain medical cannabis in state hospitals. He has also proposed limiting the cultivation of marijuana to a single supply source at Rutgers University. Lawmakers ought oppose to these amendments, which are unnecessary and, if enacted, would make New Jersey's law totally unworkable for patients.
How so? Consider this: For over nine years the University of Massachusetts has sought — unsuccessfully — to cultivate marijuana for medical research purposes. The University even went so far as to file a legal challenge with the DEA — which it won — to gain permission to grow pot. Yet in 2009 the DEA's acting director overruled the determination of the agency's own administrative law judge in order to prohibit UMass from growing even a single marijuana plant — citing that allowing the University to do so would be in violation of international conventions. It is unlikely that a similar plan at Rutgers University would be met with any greater success.
Moreover, centralizing the supply of medical-grade cannabis severely limits patients' options. The efficacy of cannabis as a medicine is derived from its various active therapeutic components, known as cannabinoids. Different strains of marijuana vary in their therapeutic prowess based on their percentages of distinct cannabinoids. By limiting patients' legal access to only one or two specific varieties of cannabis, lawmakers are needlessly consolidating the total number of patients that may be helped under the law.
Finally, it is burdensome and unnecessary to limit patients' use of medical marijuana solely to hospitals. As stated in 1988 by no less than the DEA's own administrative law judge, "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man." The plant's compounds are virtually non-toxic to healthy cells and organs, do not depress the central nervous system, and are incapable of causing a fatal overdose.
In fact, a 2008 meta-analysis published in the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association (CMAJ) reported that cannabis-based drugs were associated with virtually no elevated incidences of serious adverse side effects in over 30 years of investigative use. To place this finding in proper perspective, consider this: taking just a small amount of acetaminophen (Tylenol) over the recommended total daily dose has been conclusively shown to cause liver damage and death. It is arbitrary and unnecessary for the Governor to propose impose restrictions regarding the use of medical marijuana that are more stringent than the regulations already in place governing the distribution and use of other doctor recommended medications.
The bottom line is this. Seriously ill patients in New Jersey have already waited years for legislative relief and safe access to medical marijuana. Lawmakers should reject any further amendments or delays to the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act.
Paul Armentano is the Deputy Director of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, and he is the co-author of the book "Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink?" (Chelsea Green, 2009).
http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/commentary/christies-making-medical-marijuana-unworkable-for-new-jerseys-patients
The Christie administration is contemplating making the nation's most restrictive medical marijuana law even more restrictive. Lawmakers do so at the expense of patients' well being.
To review: in January, after years of debate, outgoing Democrat Governor Jon Corzine signed legislation making New Jersey the fourteenth state in the nation to allow for the state-authorized use of medical cannabis by qualified patients. The measure, known as The New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, authorizes select patients with a physician's recommendation to possess and obtain medical cannabis from up to six state-authorized "alternative treatment centers." Unlike the laws in thirteen others states, state-qualified patients are not legally permitted to grow their own marijuana, nor are they allowed to legally consume marijuana to mitigate the symptoms of chronic painful conditions.
Yet these safeguards apparently provide little comfort to Gov. Chris Christie. Recently, the Governor has proposed amending state law so that patients would only be eligible to obtain medical cannabis in state hospitals. He has also proposed limiting the cultivation of marijuana to a single supply source at Rutgers University. Lawmakers ought oppose to these amendments, which are unnecessary and, if enacted, would make New Jersey's law totally unworkable for patients.
How so? Consider this: For over nine years the University of Massachusetts has sought — unsuccessfully — to cultivate marijuana for medical research purposes. The University even went so far as to file a legal challenge with the DEA — which it won — to gain permission to grow pot. Yet in 2009 the DEA's acting director overruled the determination of the agency's own administrative law judge in order to prohibit UMass from growing even a single marijuana plant — citing that allowing the University to do so would be in violation of international conventions. It is unlikely that a similar plan at Rutgers University would be met with any greater success.
Moreover, centralizing the supply of medical-grade cannabis severely limits patients' options. The efficacy of cannabis as a medicine is derived from its various active therapeutic components, known as cannabinoids. Different strains of marijuana vary in their therapeutic prowess based on their percentages of distinct cannabinoids. By limiting patients' legal access to only one or two specific varieties of cannabis, lawmakers are needlessly consolidating the total number of patients that may be helped under the law.
Finally, it is burdensome and unnecessary to limit patients' use of medical marijuana solely to hospitals. As stated in 1988 by no less than the DEA's own administrative law judge, "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man." The plant's compounds are virtually non-toxic to healthy cells and organs, do not depress the central nervous system, and are incapable of causing a fatal overdose.
In fact, a 2008 meta-analysis published in the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association (CMAJ) reported that cannabis-based drugs were associated with virtually no elevated incidences of serious adverse side effects in over 30 years of investigative use. To place this finding in proper perspective, consider this: taking just a small amount of acetaminophen (Tylenol) over the recommended total daily dose has been conclusively shown to cause liver damage and death. It is arbitrary and unnecessary for the Governor to propose impose restrictions regarding the use of medical marijuana that are more stringent than the regulations already in place governing the distribution and use of other doctor recommended medications.
The bottom line is this. Seriously ill patients in New Jersey have already waited years for legislative relief and safe access to medical marijuana. Lawmakers should reject any further amendments or delays to the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act.
Paul Armentano is the Deputy Director of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, and he is the co-author of the book "Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink?" (Chelsea Green, 2009).
http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/commentary/christies-making-medical-marijuana-unworkable-for-new-jerseys-patients
Santa Barbara Set to Implement New Marijuana Ordinance
http://www.noozhawk.com/local_news/article/072210_santa_barbara_marijuana_ordinance/
Santa Barbara’s new ordinance on medical marijuana goes into effect July 29, and city officials are readying themselves to implement the new requirements.
After nearly a year of revisionary meetings, the consensus called for a three-storefront citywide cap and stricter security and operational rules.
Only one of the three permitted storefronts — at 331 N. Milpas St. — can stay, and all other locations have six months to shape up, with a permit under the new ordinance, or close up.
Under the new ordinance, members must live within Santa Barbara County and have a valid doctor’s recommendation, cultivation must be within the Tri-Counties and the operations can’t turn a profit — though reasonable compensation is thought to be acceptable. Vending machines are OK, as long as they’re located within a permitted collective dispensary, and edible products also are allowed.
In fact, according to the ordinance, anyone who “assists” in preparing the edibles will be viewed as “an individual who provides assistance to a qualified patient or person with an identification card, or his or her designated primary caregiver, in administering medical marijuana to a qualified patient …” as the phrase is mentioned in the Health and Safety Code.
Criminal Investigations
While the zoning ordinance requires operators to comply with state laws — such as being nonprofit — a permit is by no means a get-out-of-jail-free card.
The Pacific Coast Collective is permitted at 331 N. Milpas St., but after a traffic stop prompted an investigation, the owner was arrested and charged with cultivation and possession for sales of marijuana, and the storefront was temporarily shut down, Santa Barbara police Capt. Armando Martel said.
Martel, who represented police at most city meetings on the subject, is a 25-year veteran of the department in charge of the investigative division.
Local law enforcement agencies have conducted raids on several city dispensaries and residences, which yielded arrests and seizures of marijuana and cash for evidence purposes.
“The city takes people for face value when they say, ‘I’m going to open up this business,’” he said. “(The city) isn’t endorsing them — there’s an assumption that the business owners are going to obey laws.”
Regardless of civil actions, the police department will always investigate potential law violations, whether they’re reported by the public or discovered by police personnel, Martel said.
“Don’t think that I or anyone else thinks, ‘I’m going to go to a dispensary and pick on them,’” he said.
Investigations into the storefront collective and dispensary raids are resource-and-time intensive and can take four to six months from the start to getting warrants and taking enforcement action, Martel said.
Enforcing the Ordinance
Danny Kato, a senior planner with the city’s Community Development Department, had stayed busy with storefront-collective applications and ordinance updates, but has found a reprieve now that policy decisions are made.
He said he’s in the middle of writing letters to all known dispensaries telling them to close or update their applications.
Many applications stuck in limbo while the moratorium was in place are no longer valid, Kato said, leaving at least three current owners vying for two open spots — all of whom ignored cease-and-desist letters issued by the city attorney.
The Santa Barbara Patients Group has an application for a new location, and The Compassion Center on De la Vina Street and Hortipharm on Upper State Street have applications submitted with updated operational plans to comply with the new ordinance.
The owners of the Pacific Coast Collective and Hortipharm were arrested on charges of possession of marijuana for sales after investigations into compliance with the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
The Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office is prosecuting cases involving six dispensaries, four of which are within city limits, District Attorney Joyce Dudley told Noozhawk in an e-mail.
She said that everyone arrested in connection with those cases are awaiting preliminary hearings, most of which are scheduled for August or September.
No owner of a dispensary can have a felony conviction, but the city takes no action on arrests alone, Kato said.
“We’re not going to try to revoke their permit just on the arrest,” he said of the Pacific Coast Collective.
Although some owners have been involved in court action with the city over shutting down, Kato said none complied right away with the cease-and-desist letters.
City Resources
Enforcement and the processing of applications can be a drain on the police department, the city attorney’s office and the community development department, but the heavy implementation process could be short-lived.
A new $120-per-hour fee for processing applications is designed to help with cost recovery, and after the six-month deadline to comply or shut down, there will be only three to deal with, Kato said.
Plans for annual reviews and record-keeping, with cooperation from the police department, are still being developed, but operators of storefront collectives must keep all financial, membership and cultivation records on hand for three years and make them available to city staff.
New applications will be accepted through July 29, though chances could be slim as there are many people fighting for two available spots.
“You could spend a lot of money and not even get the chance to present your case,” Kato said.
Other Jurisdictions
Santa Barbara County is one of 15 in California with a moratorium against dispensaries, and the city is one of 36 with an ordinance, according to Americans for Safe Access.
Many jurisdictions have their eyes on the November ballot measure that proposes legalizing the use of marijuana, and 101 cities have adopted moratoria and another 132 have bans. The Santa Barbara City Council approved a ballot measure for November that would ban all storefront collectives.
Just recently, the Ventura City Council continued its moratorium. During the meeting, some people made references to Santa Barbara, calling it a marijuana mecca, and said the distinction between legitimate collectives and for-profit dispensaries is too difficult to discern, according to the Ventura County Star.
The nearest areas with an ordinance allowing dispensaries are cities in Santa Clara County, Tulare County or the Long Beach area, depending on which way you’re driving.
— Noozhawk staff writer Giana Magnoli can be reached at gmagnoli@noozhawk.com.
http://www.noozhawk.com/local_news/article/072210_santa_barbara_marijuana_ordinance/
Santa Barbara’s new ordinance on medical marijuana goes into effect July 29, and city officials are readying themselves to implement the new requirements.
After nearly a year of revisionary meetings, the consensus called for a three-storefront citywide cap and stricter security and operational rules.
Only one of the three permitted storefronts — at 331 N. Milpas St. — can stay, and all other locations have six months to shape up, with a permit under the new ordinance, or close up.
Under the new ordinance, members must live within Santa Barbara County and have a valid doctor’s recommendation, cultivation must be within the Tri-Counties and the operations can’t turn a profit — though reasonable compensation is thought to be acceptable. Vending machines are OK, as long as they’re located within a permitted collective dispensary, and edible products also are allowed.
In fact, according to the ordinance, anyone who “assists” in preparing the edibles will be viewed as “an individual who provides assistance to a qualified patient or person with an identification card, or his or her designated primary caregiver, in administering medical marijuana to a qualified patient …” as the phrase is mentioned in the Health and Safety Code.
Criminal Investigations
While the zoning ordinance requires operators to comply with state laws — such as being nonprofit — a permit is by no means a get-out-of-jail-free card.
The Pacific Coast Collective is permitted at 331 N. Milpas St., but after a traffic stop prompted an investigation, the owner was arrested and charged with cultivation and possession for sales of marijuana, and the storefront was temporarily shut down, Santa Barbara police Capt. Armando Martel said.
Martel, who represented police at most city meetings on the subject, is a 25-year veteran of the department in charge of the investigative division.
Local law enforcement agencies have conducted raids on several city dispensaries and residences, which yielded arrests and seizures of marijuana and cash for evidence purposes.
“The city takes people for face value when they say, ‘I’m going to open up this business,’” he said. “(The city) isn’t endorsing them — there’s an assumption that the business owners are going to obey laws.”
Regardless of civil actions, the police department will always investigate potential law violations, whether they’re reported by the public or discovered by police personnel, Martel said.
“Don’t think that I or anyone else thinks, ‘I’m going to go to a dispensary and pick on them,’” he said.
Investigations into the storefront collective and dispensary raids are resource-and-time intensive and can take four to six months from the start to getting warrants and taking enforcement action, Martel said.
Enforcing the Ordinance
Danny Kato, a senior planner with the city’s Community Development Department, had stayed busy with storefront-collective applications and ordinance updates, but has found a reprieve now that policy decisions are made.
He said he’s in the middle of writing letters to all known dispensaries telling them to close or update their applications.
Many applications stuck in limbo while the moratorium was in place are no longer valid, Kato said, leaving at least three current owners vying for two open spots — all of whom ignored cease-and-desist letters issued by the city attorney.
The Santa Barbara Patients Group has an application for a new location, and The Compassion Center on De la Vina Street and Hortipharm on Upper State Street have applications submitted with updated operational plans to comply with the new ordinance.
The owners of the Pacific Coast Collective and Hortipharm were arrested on charges of possession of marijuana for sales after investigations into compliance with the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
The Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office is prosecuting cases involving six dispensaries, four of which are within city limits, District Attorney Joyce Dudley told Noozhawk in an e-mail.
She said that everyone arrested in connection with those cases are awaiting preliminary hearings, most of which are scheduled for August or September.
No owner of a dispensary can have a felony conviction, but the city takes no action on arrests alone, Kato said.
“We’re not going to try to revoke their permit just on the arrest,” he said of the Pacific Coast Collective.
Although some owners have been involved in court action with the city over shutting down, Kato said none complied right away with the cease-and-desist letters.
City Resources
Enforcement and the processing of applications can be a drain on the police department, the city attorney’s office and the community development department, but the heavy implementation process could be short-lived.
A new $120-per-hour fee for processing applications is designed to help with cost recovery, and after the six-month deadline to comply or shut down, there will be only three to deal with, Kato said.
Plans for annual reviews and record-keeping, with cooperation from the police department, are still being developed, but operators of storefront collectives must keep all financial, membership and cultivation records on hand for three years and make them available to city staff.
New applications will be accepted through July 29, though chances could be slim as there are many people fighting for two available spots.
“You could spend a lot of money and not even get the chance to present your case,” Kato said.
Other Jurisdictions
Santa Barbara County is one of 15 in California with a moratorium against dispensaries, and the city is one of 36 with an ordinance, according to Americans for Safe Access.
Many jurisdictions have their eyes on the November ballot measure that proposes legalizing the use of marijuana, and 101 cities have adopted moratoria and another 132 have bans. The Santa Barbara City Council approved a ballot measure for November that would ban all storefront collectives.
Just recently, the Ventura City Council continued its moratorium. During the meeting, some people made references to Santa Barbara, calling it a marijuana mecca, and said the distinction between legitimate collectives and for-profit dispensaries is too difficult to discern, according to the Ventura County Star.
The nearest areas with an ordinance allowing dispensaries are cities in Santa Clara County, Tulare County or the Long Beach area, depending on which way you’re driving.
— Noozhawk staff writer Giana Magnoli can be reached at gmagnoli@noozhawk.com.
http://www.noozhawk.com/local_news/article/072210_santa_barbara_marijuana_ordinance/
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Medical marijuana provides an economic boost in Montana
The rapid growth of Montana’s medical marijuana community has fueled a local economy but isn’t making anyone rich, yet. In the past two years, the state’s licensed patient pool has grown to 20,000 who are supplied by nearly 4,000 caregivers. Montana allows small individual growers to provide the supply of medical marijuana, whereas in New Mexico growing is limited to state approved non-profits or licensed patients themselves. The result in Montana is a flourishing medical marijuana cottage industry, reports the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, that generates millions in economic activity in various sectors of the economy.
As the Daily Chronicle reported:
After the home construction market crashed, medical marijuana has helped “a massive amount,” said Ron Boston, president of Comfort Systems, a Bozeman ventilation, heating and air-conditioning business. “It has put a jump start to part of our business.”
Boston stressed his company is reputable and only agreed to install ventilation systems for marijuana growers because it isn’t breaking any laws. New systems can cost $8,000 to $20,000, he said. The new business allowed him to hire a couple people.
“In a downturn, you’ve gotta do what you’ve gotta do to survive,” Boston said.
The paper said the industry had benefitted garden supply stores, “lawyers, accountants, builders, electricians, Web page designers and commercial real estate brokers.”
The executive director of the Montana Medical Growers Association said growers have spent $17 million on start-up costs for things like lights, nutrients, soils, odor abatement gear, security, lawyers and insurance. Then, there are the utilities, rent, and employees to help tend the plants in a routine similar to the doting that’s required for orchids.
http://newmexicoindependent.com/59917/medical-marijuana-provides-an-economic-boost-in-montana
As the Daily Chronicle reported:
After the home construction market crashed, medical marijuana has helped “a massive amount,” said Ron Boston, president of Comfort Systems, a Bozeman ventilation, heating and air-conditioning business. “It has put a jump start to part of our business.”
Boston stressed his company is reputable and only agreed to install ventilation systems for marijuana growers because it isn’t breaking any laws. New systems can cost $8,000 to $20,000, he said. The new business allowed him to hire a couple people.
“In a downturn, you’ve gotta do what you’ve gotta do to survive,” Boston said.
The paper said the industry had benefitted garden supply stores, “lawyers, accountants, builders, electricians, Web page designers and commercial real estate brokers.”
The executive director of the Montana Medical Growers Association said growers have spent $17 million on start-up costs for things like lights, nutrients, soils, odor abatement gear, security, lawyers and insurance. Then, there are the utilities, rent, and employees to help tend the plants in a routine similar to the doting that’s required for orchids.
http://newmexicoindependent.com/59917/medical-marijuana-provides-an-economic-boost-in-montana
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
