Davis Votes to Ban Dispensaries

Meeting Report: Davis Votes to Ban Dispensaries
Date: July 27, 2005
Author: Nathan Sands, Chairman of The Compassionate Coalition
Contact: nathan [at] CompassionateCoalition.org

Last night the Davis City Council discussed a moratorium and a permanent
ban on medical marijuana "dispensaries". Assistant Police Chief Steven
Pierce gave a report to the council, and stated that California's medical
marijuana laws are unaffected by the Supreme Court decision in Raich v.
Gonzales.

However, Assistant Police Chief Pierce also told the council that "Raich
can support our decision to prohibit such centers, if we chose, since
allowing them would require 'permitting' such a venture which, the U.S.
Supreme Court has just ruled, violates federal law."

Pierce's report goes on to state "Allowing medical marijuana dispensaries,
even regulating them as is permitted under current California law, might
lead individuals to believe that they are safe from prosecution."

I was the only public speaker on this issue, and I was given only 2
minutes to explain the many contradictions and false conslusions in the
Assistant Police Chief's report.

I explained to the council that the ban defines a "dispensary" as a
location where medical marijuana is made available to, or distributed by 2
or more patients or caregivers. As such, the ban would violate state law
by prohibiting caregivers, cooperatives and collectives, which are allowed
under Health & Safety Code 11362.7.

I made it clear that no city has the authority to restrict rights granted
under state law, and that any attempt to do so would be subject to legal
action.

Additionally, I told the council that the state ID card program for
medical marijuana patients had recently faced concerns about "permitting"
activity that is illegal under federal law. I explained that California
Attorney General Lockyer ruled that the state would not be in violation of
federal law, and that state agencies must follow state medical marijuana
laws.

I asked the council to have more open discussion on this issue in order to
bcome better informed, and to develop a regulatory ordinance rather than a
ban.

Following my speech, the council asked Assistant Police Chief Pierce if a
ban on dispensaries would also restrict caregivers, cooperatives and
collectives. Pierce insited that the ban would only apply to "storefront
dispensaries", not caregivers, cooperatives or collectives.

Assistant Police Chief Pierce also said that Davis residents still have
the right to cultivate and use medical marijuana, and several
councilmembers repeated this point.

The council then discussed extending the moratorium for 1 year more, in
order to have more time to understand the issue.

Councilmember Don Saylor pointed out that he is a member of the League of
California Cities' "Task Force on Medical Marijuana." Saylor said that
the task force will be meeting in October to discuss dispensaries, and
Mayor Pro Tempore Sue Greenwald commented that she would also like to
attend the meeting to find out more.

Several councilmembers said that the 1-year moratorium would give the city
more time to understand the issues before acting. The City Council then
voted unanimously to extend the moratorium for 1 year.

Then, without any discussion or explanation, the council voted to enact a
permanent ban on dispensaries. The council has to repeat this vote one
more time, next month, before the ban will take effect.

In summary: The council enacted a 1-year moratorium in order to have more
time to understand the issue, then immediately enacted a permanent ban
that will take effect in about 1 month. I can't say for sure why they did
this; my own opinion is that the councilmembers didn't really understand
what they were doing, and didn't even care to figure it out.

On this issue, the Davis City Coucil acted almost entirely on the advice
of Assistant Police Chief Pierce, and did not seek any guidance from an
attorney or anyone else. Additionally, Pierce stated on the record that
he had only sought input on this issue from other law enforcement
officers, and had no input whatsoever from attorneys, physicians,
government officials, issue experts, residents, or anyone else.

[end]