Alameda Supes Debate MMJ Ordinance - Vote set Jun 7th

ALAMEDA SUPES DEBATE ON-SITE VAPORIZATION, LOCATION & NUMBER OF MMJ
DISPENSARIES
VOTE ON DISPENSARY ORDINANCE SET JUN 7th

OAKLAND, May 24 - The Alameda County Board of Supervisors held
hearings on the proposed medical marijuana dispensary ordinance
today, but held off a vote until Jun 7th to allow Supervisors to
consider the issues more carefully.
Sup. Miley noted that the Board was under pressure to act
quickly, since Sheriff Charles Plummer has threatened to close down
all of the clubs if an ordinance isn't passed by mid-June. He also
expressed exasperation at how "people who are abusing (Prop 215) are
screwing it up for everyone" with real medical needs.
Important issues on which the Board was undecided include:
(1) On-site vaporization. Under prodding from Sup. Miley,
Scott Haggerty reluctantly abandoned his opposition to allowing
on-site consumption in the form of vaporization. However, Sup.
Lai-Bitker and Steele wavered, saying they didn't fully understand
the need for it, leading Haggerty to say he could change his vote
back. Patients need to lobby Sup. Lai-Bitker and Steele to assure
that on-site vaporization is preserved.
(2) Number of clubs. The current ordinance allows 5, but
Haggerty and Lai-Bitker both said they preferred 3. They are likely
to prevail, unless Steele can be persuaded to allow 5 (Sup Carson was
absent, but is thought to be sympathetic to Sup Miley's position).
(3) Location. It was objected that the present zoning
rules, in particular the 1000 foot buffer zone separating
dispensaries from schools, parks, and each other, could force some
exemplary clubs to close needlessly. Sup. Haggerty appeared
impressed when Compassionate Caregivers director Sparky Rose
complained that the rules made it impossible for his facility to
maintain its present location, despite the fact there had been no
complaints against it. There may be room for a compromise on this
issue.
Sup. Haggerty tacked on a few extra restrictions: requiring
two bathrooms at each facility, one for each sex; forbidding
presence of minors even if accompanied by their parents; requiring
that dispensaries not be directly visible from the street, but be
located in a back room (not in front with their windows blacked out);
and requiring dispensaries to close for one and a half hours after
nearby schools let out.
There were many complaints from both the Board and the public
about apparent abuses in which marijuana was being dispensed to
persons without real medical need. "People are taking advantage
of these places," said Sup. Steele. Dispensary operators replied
that the problem wasn't with them, but with the doctors who are
issuing recommendations too freely. Attorney Bill Panzer proposed
a medical review program similar to that in Sonoma County, where
recommendations are reviewed by a board of local doctors to determine
their legitimacy.
Neighborhood & school groups complained that medical marijuana
was getting into the hands of the kids. On further examination, it
turned out that this was happening either because kids were getting
into their parents' medicine closet, or because they were robbing
patients in the street.
A few people spoke favorably about establishing a county clinic
in Fairmount hospital. Apparently, they did not understand that this
isn't feasible under current federal law.
All in all, the Board spoke quite favorably about medical
marijuana, but were clearly upset by the nuisance problems caused by
certain clubs, and by the continuing abuse of the system by
non-medical users.
- D. Gieringer, Cal NORML

--