Council takes more time on medical marijuana regulations

Debate rages on storefront model

By ERIC LINDBERG — Feb. 24, 2010

Inching ever closer to a final decision on how to tackle the convoluted issue of medical marijuana, Santa Barbara city leaders decided yesterday to spend two more months hashing out changes to local laws that regulate storefront pot collectives.

While in general agreement on more detailed aspects of the city’s regulations, such as a citywide cap of five total dispensaries, the council remained split on how to address the broader problem of crafting a definition of a storefront collective that conforms with somewhat vague state law.

“What we are talking about as a city council is not the legalization of marijuana, it’s not the prohibition of marijuana, it’s not the medical efficacy of marijuana,” said Councilmember Dale Francisco. “It’s about coming up with a solution that the state has not provided.”

The ordinance committee will delve into the complicated task of defining exactly what an ideal nonprofit storefront collective would look like and how it would operate during a series of hearings in the next two months, after which the full council will revisit the issue.

Otherwise, city leaders appear to be in consensus on several new regulations that would cut the citywide cap to five dispensaries, possibly eliminate the Mesa as a site for storefront collectives, and set buffer zones around major alcohol and drug recovery facilities.

Yesterday’s decision to kick the issue back to the ordinance committee for further fine-tuning came after hours of public testimony and a laborious back-and-forth discussion between the members of the council.

More than 60 speakers turned in a request to address the council — some urging city leaders to provide safe access to medical marijuana for legitimate patients, others demanding the council protect the community’s children from exposure to the drug.

Councilmember Das Williams pressed his colleagues to move forward yesterday evening with a set of detailed changes before tackling the larger issue of defining a nonprofit storefront. He specifically advocated for one alteration that would cut down the length of time afforded to non-conforming dispensaries before they would have to close.

“It’s crazy that people are emailing me to say we want less of these in town, so vote against the regulations that would make sure there are less of these in town,” he said.

Williams also responded to calls for an outright ban on dispensaries, noting that state law allows for collectives to operate without regulation in any home or backyard.

“If we propagate a ban on storefront collectives, then what we will have instead is neighborhood-based collectives, also known as delivery services,” he said.

But others on the council opposed moving forward on any new regulations yesterday, arguing that making changes to the ordinance before addressing the central question of how to define a collective wouldn’t make sense.

“You don’t want to build a house on a shaky foundation, and this is a shaky foundation,” Councilmember Frank Hotchkiss said.

Francisco said state law, while somewhat ambiguous, defines an appropriate system of distributing medical marijuana — specifically a nonprofit model of patients and caregivers who cultivate marijuana for their own use.

“What appears to be contemplated in the Compassionate Use Act is a very limited model that is specifically designed not to attract profit-making, not to attract entrepreneurs,” he said.

City officials have been grappling with how best to regulate the burgeoning medical marijuana industry in Santa Barbara since August 2007, when residents of a Westside neighborhood complained about a troublesome dispensary.

After putting an initial set of regulations in place, the city started receiving applications for new pot shops in mid-2008. The issue quickly became a topic for public scrutiny and debate.

“Ever since, there’s been quite a bit of public controversy about these dispensaries,” said Danny Kato, a senior city planner who has been overseeing the process of developing new regulations.

After months of lengthy committee hearings, city leaders had drafted a handful of changes, including a citywide cap and new locational requirements, along with a shortened time period for nonconforming shops to adhere to city laws or close.

In the meantime, local police led several crackdown efforts on illegal dispensaries determined to be operating outside of state law.

On January 7, officers arrested six people at a dispensary on Bond Avenue. Later that month, authorities made two arrests following a fire at a De la Vina Street apartment where residents had been attempting to convert marijuana leaves into concentrated oil.

In early February, officers stopped a vehicle and found 20 pounds of marijuana in the trunk. That investigation led local authorities to raid four dispensaries on the South Coast, including two in the city of Santa Barbara, several weeks later.

“The bottom line is profit,” Capt. Armando Martel said. “Are they buying this product? Are they selling it to make a profit?”

If so, they are presumably in violation of Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act.

Drafting ordinance language to ensure that storefront collectives operating in Santa Barbara meet those state standards promises to be a tricky process, but City Attorney Steve Wiley said part of the job is already done.

The city of Los Angeles recently approved an ordinance of its own after grappling with that very question, and Wiley said he plans to borrow appropriate sections from that legislation as local leaders try to formulate their own definition in the coming months.

Comment on this article

Subject:

Body:

Poster:

Enter text seen above:

wondering : 2/24/2010

Can someone make public or publish the salaries of these owners and dispensary workers? The public may be interested if there is any apparent shelters hiding the for-profit model.

Layed off Larry

---

re wondering : 2/24/2010

Non-profit organizations may pay their management and workers salaries. If they are 501c3's, then they have to file IRS form 990 which is public but takes a while to be readily available. If they're not, they don't have to publish what they pay, but maybe the city regulations will require such transparency?

city voter

---

Good idea : 2/24/2010

city voter is right. The state is hazy on this. Collectives or cooperatives, non-profit, and closed-loop. The general idea is a group of patients and caregivers that come together to grow and distribute within a small, closed system, where money is not changing hands. Say 5 patients and their caregivers come together and form a collective. One of them has some land to grow it, and then the others help out with water bills, fertilizer, etc. That was the intent of the state law. The city will have to follow the lead of LA and Napa in further specifying regulations such as specifying who in the collective can grow, how much, and where. The city will also have to require filing 990 forms, organizing as a non-profit corp, and reviewing books to ensure profiteering is out of it. Pacific Coast Collective, one of the 'legal' dispensaries, admitted they're faking it by having their suppliers pretend to be members so it would look like a collective.
This is going to be a very slippery slope. The state really should have figured this out, instead of punting it to the cities to do all the work, one at a time like this. That's what you get when you pass voter initiatives written by 3 guys smoking and jotting down notes on a napkin.

downtown res

---

Local Politicians making decicions about medicine. : 2/24/2010

Pardon me if I'm way off here, but why are Local Politicians making decisions about medicine?
Seems to be a huge conflict of moral interest. To have people that are more educated in communication and economics making decisions about MEDICINE without a equal council of doctors - medically educated people - seems to be absolutely absurd.
Basically the bottom line is, until LEGITIMATE properly overseen/observed medical long-term studies are performed on Marijuana, debates from either side of the opinion scale are about as interesting to me as a "who's high school football team is cooler" Debate. Both sides are ignorant.'
Innocent until proven guilty is the way our system is supposed to work. Lets get some medical facts and then decide.

Born at Cotttage LOCAL

---