- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Ordinance Committee Struggles to Decipher Marijuana Laws
Once again, the city of Santa Barbara Ordinance Committee struggled to pin down an interpretation of state medical-marijuana laws relating to collectives and dispensaries.
Looking at health and safety code sections included in the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and Senate Bill 420, city attorney Stephen Wiley told the committee Tuesday that statutes were vague and largely undefined, leaving jurisdictions somewhat in the lurch while trying to create their own laws.
Medical marijuana is decriminalized for “seriously ill Californians,” which has been interpreted into a broad definition, Wiley said.
Qualified patients, who have a doctor’s recommendation, can cultivate and use marijuana for medical purposes, or get it through a primary caregiver — someone who “consistently assumes responsibility for the housing, health or safety of that person.”
Wiley also went over jurisdictional portions of the statutes: A caregiver has to reside in the same city or county as the qualified patient. Or, if they don’t , they are designated as only one patient’s primary caregiver.
The third category gets trickier — individuals who “provide assistance” to patients or caregivers. While no individual or group can cultivate or distribute marijuana for a profit, some people can receive reasonable compensation for services or reimbursement for actual expenses or out-of-pocket expenses.
Santa Barbara will continue trying to solve the question: Where do storefront dispensaries fit into state law, if they even do?
During public comment Tuesday, many people expressed concern that the dispensary model is illegal since money changes hands, and urged committee members to consider where and by whom the marijuana is cultivated.
Santa Barbara School District administrator Bud Andrews and others called for a ban on the sale of edible marijuana products, which can be indistinguishable from normal food.
Ordinance Committee members Frank Hotchkiss, Grant House and Bendy White will continue the issue at a future meeting, though they may not take additional public comment because of time constraints.
On Tuesday, they also continued the discussion of including no-dispensary zones around substance abuse treatment facilities.
Senior planner Danny Kato and staff took the City Council’s direction and came up with a list of high-priority recovery facilities, which could be awarded protection zones around them from dispensary locations.
Hotchkiss, House and White expressed mixed feelings about the idea, which would further limit allowable locations.
With limited access to medical marijuana dispensaries through regulations, House said he didn’t make the connection between location regulations and danger to the surrounding neighborhood. Enforcing operational regulations would work much better than a circle on a map, he said.
Hotchkiss said limiting access near recovery and treatment facilities is a “matter of temptation.” While he, and others, acknowledged that the dispensaries themselves may behave within the ordinance regulations, some members have been known to resell the medical marijuana after obtaining it.
Near a recovery facility, it would be “like having an audience waiting for you,” he said.
Recovery doesn’t end when someone leaves a facility, and having dispensaries nearby creates “an atmosphere of permissiveness and temptation,” said Fighting Back coordinator Jen Lemberger, who has voiced support for a ban.
Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital has a recovery facility as well, which would eliminate dispensaries from that entire area if it were included.
White had an issue with that, since he and others have supported having access in the medical area, and said he was “struggling” with all the staff time spent on various maps showing which parts of the city were allowable or not for dispensaries.
In public comment, a few people agreed with House’s sentiments, wondering how much location mattered compared with strict operational guidelines.
Robert Burke, who said he has gone through various 12-step programs, said the locations of dispensaries are pointless, as he would have walked five miles for a drink or smoke if he wanted.
Hans Edwards, whose application for a dispensary was appealed and then shot down, said it was inconsistent to restrict the location of dispensaries — but not liquor stores — near recovery facilities.
The issue most likely will come up again March 30. Click here for more information about the ordinance.
— Noozhawk staff writer Giana Magnoli can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 03.18.10 @ 09:39 AM
Take me back to the 1920s - just change “marijuana” to read “alcohol” in this and similar articles.
Today, we accept and control dispensaries of alcohol but can’t seem to find a logical model in that to control marijuana, a drug that science says is less harmful than alcohol. Strange.
We never seem to learn the lessons of the past except very painfully over a long time period.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 03.19.10 @ 08:27 AM
Medical marijuana was never supposed to be sold and distributed like alcohol. Quit making this stupid comparison. Medical marijuana was supposed to be self-grown, or collectively grown and shared among a small group of people in need of it. The state law never authorized budtenders, walk-in dispensaries where anyone could buy it, and huge profits. If you don’t like the state law, then work to change it.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Goleta Seeks Public Input on Law Enforcement Services
Participants are needed for two focus groups scheduled for Feb. 15
Goleta Woman Accused of Having Sex with Teen Boy
Sheriff's Department says victim recently came forward about 2008 relationship
Goleta Police Warn Public About Recent Home Burglaries
Witnesses report seeing a suspect going door to door in the neighborhood around Scripps Crescent Street
Approval from Santa Barbara County Supervisors the Last Step for Venoco’s New Pipeline
The board will consider an ordinance allowing the company to begin transporting oil via a pipeline that has already been built, instead of by barge
Pacific Storm Expected to Bring Rain, Wind Back to Santa Barbara County on Tuesday
Weather officials say South Coast could receive up to 1½ inches of rain with wind gusting to 30 mph
Weather: Fair 63.0º
Search Noozhawk »
