SF Supervisors Pass Cannabis Club Moratorium

"This moratorium allows a mature decision-making process," said long-time medical cannabis advocate Wayne Justman. " We have a great deal of expertise available in the city and county of San Francisco.”

California law SB420, passed in 2003, set guidelines for the operation of medical cannabis dispensaries under the state's 1996 Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215), but allows localities to impose more stringent regulations. Last winter the Oakland City Council passed a law setting a limit of four medical marijuana facilities. San Francisco currently has more than 30 dispensaries.

San Francisco has no existing laws regulating the operation of cannabis dispensaries, and permitting requirements are unclear. While some clubs have obtained business licenses, planning department permits, or both, other facilities have neither.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom called for a moratorium last Monday after learning that a cannabis club was planning to open in the All Star Hotel in the Mission neighborhood, which receives funding through the city’s “Care Not Cash” program to provide supportive housing for welfare recipients.

"We have frankly ... been lax on this," Newsom told the San Francisco Chronicle. While reaffirming that he believes medical marijuana is “appropriate and right," Newsom said, “I also think there needs to be some common sense and grounding as it relates to the proliferation of these clubs in San Francisco."

The day after Newsom's request, the All Star owner cancelled the dispensary's lease. City officials said they would adopt new contract language prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries in city-funded residences in the future.

The mayor's call for a moratorium received widespread support. The emergency ordinance, introduced by Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi and Angela Alioto-Pier, was cosponsored by seven other board members.

"We have given medical cannabis our blessing, but we have a responsibility and an obligation to midwife this to the next step," Mirkarimi said at Tuesday's board meeting. "This buys us a little bit of time to launch a deliberate process, a public discourse, so citizens an weigh in on the development of new laws. We want to legitimize something that has been living in the shadows.

Several supervisors emphasized that the new ordinance is not intended to reopen the debate about medical cannabis, nor should it be taken as an indication of a lack of support on the board's part.

"This is not an occasion to revisit the issue of whether there should be medical marijuana," said District 9 Supervisor Tom Ammiano. "We're not going to go there.”

“This has nothing to do with how we stand on medicinal marijuana, but we need to move in a responsible way,” said District 2 representative Alioto-Pier, citing neighborhood concerns about dispensaries located near schools. “We don’t want to do anything to jeopardize the programs we have.”

Some 20 community members at Tuesday’s meeting -- including medical marijuana patients, cannabis dispensary operators, and concerned neighbors – offered public comment, mostly in favor of the moratorium.

“We are in full support of the moratorium,” said Martin Olive, co-director of Vapor Room. “San Francisco is in a privileged position to create intelligent policy that can set standards for the state.”

"This is a step in the right direction of taxing and regulating cannabis as a business," said Dale Gieringer of the California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. "This is in the best interest of the patients, the community, and the economy."

"We need to have rules and regulations," said medical cannabis activist and patient Michelle Aldrich. "We want to be part of the community. Licensing, planning, zoning...we're ready."

There was some disagreement, however, about what the deliberation process and the eventual new regulations should look like.

The moratorium “gives patients the chance to talk to their supervisors rather than having regulations emanate from the government without consideration of patients’ concerns,” said Michael Aldrich, former director of Cannabis Helping Alleviate Medical Problems (CHAMP). He proposed a plan for a citywide patients’ cooperative consisting of all individuals who hold city-issued medical cannabis ID cards. “This would let the patients work it out.”

But several residents -- some citing concerns about the proliferation of multiple dispensaries in their neighborhoods and saying they had been harassed by club clients -- emphasized that all sides must be heard.

"I'm really alarmed that eight clubs have opened [in my neighborhood] in six months," said Laura While, a nurse and mother from District 6. "This has been an absolute disaster. The city must devise regulations that work for both patients and residents."

“The process needs to be open not only to dispensary owners, but also those most affected, which are patients and neighbors,” said Alex Franco of Americans for Safe Access. “It is the role of the city government to ensure that the discussion is open not only to those on business side, but also those who need their medicine and [safety in] their homes.”

Dispensaries owners and staff expressed the desire to work with the community. Initially “we did not consider how [growth of the club] would affect the neighborhood,” conceded Alan Novey of Mendo Healing. “There have been some problems, some of which are not under our control. We met with the neighbors, agreed [the club] had gotten too big, and started looking for another location. We want to work with city to do things right.”

Other speakers at Tuesday’s meeting, fearing that limiting the number of dispensaries and taxing cannabis sales could lead to increased prices for patients, spoke in favor of keeping a “free market.” Some club owners expressed frustration and confusion about the status of existing dispensaries that are currently operating without permits, which they believed they did not need.

“When we entertain regulations, we always have to walk a tightrope,” said Ammiano. “We don't want to over-regulate, but we want to make sure patients are treated fairly. We don’t want people to abuse this [moratorium]. We don't want people to think they're going to be able to practice 'NIMBYism' around this issue."

No one expects the forthcoming process to be quick.

Deputy city attorney Cheryl Adams explained that by state law the board can pass an initial urgency ordinance lasting up to 45 days. After that, they may extend the moratorium twice, for a total period of about 22 months.

West Hollywood recently passed a similar moratorium against new cannabis clubs. The city council is scheduled to consider whether to extend that city's 45-day urgency ordinance at a meeting on April 4.

"We should expect this to be extended," said SF Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, noting that amendments to the planning code require public hearings and take at least 90 days. "We're in uncharted waters. The next 45 day are for figuring this out."


PHOTO: Jason Beck, Wayne Justman, and Michael Aldrich

NOTE: An earlier version of this article appeared in the Bay Area Reporter, 31 March 2005.