« Will The DEA Raid Oakland Dispensaries? | Main | Wo/men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana March »
June 30, 2005
San Francisco Offers Draft Regulations for Dispensaries
San Francisco city supervisors have put forth competing proposals for city ordinances to regulate medical cannabis dispensaries. Supervisor Sean Elsbernd - who pushed through a resolution directing the city attorney to investigate two clubs in his district that allegedly violated the city’s dispensary moratorium (and were later raided by federal agents) - wants to cut the number of San Francisco dispensaries from around forty to eight.
Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi and Gerardo Sandoval have each proposed actual legislation for regulating the clubs that will be hashed out in the coming weeks. Mirkarimi’s proposal would require that the clubs obtain permits from the Department of Public Health, the Planning and Building Departments. The application fee for opening a dispensary will cost $7,396. If cannabis is smoked in the facility, it must be located 1,000 feet from schools, cultural or community centers. If cannabis is not smoked, dispensaries must keep 500 feet away from these facilities.
Patients may possess no more than one pound of dried marijuana and no more than 12 mature or 24 immature plants unless their doctor indicates that this amount does not meet their needs. Dispensaries would be limited to selling patients one pound of cannabis per visit and may not maintain more than 12 mature or 24 immature plants per patient.
Under this proposal, the dispensaries could be operated only as collectives or cooperatives as outlined under California Senate Bill 420. Dispensary employees would be allowed to receive compensation for their work and be paid for their expenses, but the sale of medical cannabis for “excessive profits” is explicitly forbidden.
According to the Mirkarimi proposal, residents within 300 feet must be notified that the dispensary is opening and have 30 days to participate in a planning committee review of building permit applications. Dispensaries in operation before the April 1st moratorium, will have 18 months from the effective date of the legislation to obtain the proper permits. Any dispensary operating in a residential house or residential mixed-use district must close. Neighbor Laura Weil, who lives nearby the Health and Wellness Alternatives dispensary run by Charlie Pappas, has been granted a temporary restraining order against the club based on an allegation that the club is located in an inappropriate neighborhood. Pappas is fighting the injunction.
Mirkarimi’s proposal, while generally reasonable, could give law enforcement an opportunity to try and block dispensaries from opening. It would allow the San Francisco police to conduct criminal and employment background checks on those operating or working in medical cannabis dispensaries. Each medical cannabis dispensary would also be required to make their records available for inspection, examination and copying by the Department of Public Health. While the proposal supports the keeping of records on patients only by the number on their medical cannabis id cards, records of transaction with vendors would be vulnerable to federal subpoena.
Rebecca Saltzman, field manager for Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the medical cannabis patients advocacy group, says her organization likes most of Mirkarimi’s proposal with the exception of the 1,000 foot rule which would put clubs in locations that would make it difficult for patients to visit. She says ASA also wants to focus on increasing the plant limits which are still too low. While Saltzman says ASA doesn’t like the police background check requirements, she doesn’t think they can win that battle.
Posted by ann at June 30, 2005 05:47 PM
Comments
Looks to me like both Mirkarimi's and Sandoval's bills co-opt the name "patient collectives" for dispensaries (retail stores), and leave real patient collectives (without retail stores) out in the cold. SB420 says patients can "associate collectively and cooperatively" to cultivate their own medicine, by reimbursing a grower for costs. But there is no way for an honest patient collective to get a permit as an MCD, because the application permit process would require the cultivator to post a huge sign on the exterior advertising the garden not just to the neighbors, but to the world. Disguising dispensaries as patient collectives but not having a permit process for a real collective garden, is a real perversion of SB420. Not to mention the perversion of SB420's 1000-foot rule, which pertains to smoking medical cannabis in public, not to the location of dispensaries. Onsite consumption should be allowed in all dispensaries IF they wish to claim the title of collectives. Dispensaries should be located in all neighborhoods, because patients live in all neighborhoods. "Protecting the children" is the oldest Reefer Madness bullshit used, then as now, to stop the use of (medical or otherwise) marijuana by adults. I'm very disappointed that our Supervisors are distorting SB420 to limit dispensaries to retail organizations that can afford the application fees and license fees (totaling $10,000), while providing no opportunity for honest patient collectives to exist. Protect the Growers!
--Mike Aldrich
Posted by: Mike Aldrich at July 18, 2005 05:21 PM