4/6 - Sac City Council; Rally for Prop. 215 Medicinal Cannabis Rights!

To impose a drastic restriction on the 40 + or so currently operating 215 cannabis dispensaries will create an economic bottleneck effect as demand will remain the same, if not increase, while supply will be restricted to only 13 lucky lottery winners who will be allowed to remain open. This is incredibly unfair to 215 patients who currently have choices of which dispensary they want to shop at, and the quality of the product and service from staff and possibly location within the city are their reasons for choosing one dispensary over another.

Supporters of 215 patients rights and anyone with a 215 recommendation is invited to speak out at the city council meeting on Tues, April 6th beginning at 3 pm. Prior to the city council meeting will be a medicinal cannabis rally held at Ceasar Chavez Park on 10th and J street beginning at 12 pm and moving to Sacramento city council at 3 pm. Supporters of 215 patient rights are welcome to attend the rally also.

Just as people would not support having only 13 restaurants or 13 gas stations in Sacramento based on city council decisions, people will not support narrowing down the number of dispensaries to only 13 in a city where demand for services is only increasing for 215 patients. Due to greater demand for service, price raising and other economic bottleneck measures as proposed by city council will negatively effect the low income patients who are dependent on healthy competition between dispensaries to maintain lower prices and improving quality of product and services.

Though the condition of capitalism leaves alot to be desired in the interest of fairness, the Sacramento city council isn't going to try to regulate the remaining 13 lucky lottery winners to ensure they continue to provide reasonable pricing and standards of quality in product and services for 215 patients. Under this current system, patients will be best served by allowing free market competition between dispensaries, and possibly third party or state regulations to ensure quality of products and service remains up to acceptable standards.

The Sac city council's tactic of squeezing out over half the currently operating dispensaries is unfair because there will only be the negative side effects of virtual monopoly of the remaining 13 lucky lottery winners including price spikes that will hurt the poorest people the most. Longer lines and wait times are inevitable as patients are shuffled into the remaining 13 dispensaries lucky enough to win a lottery. There is no predictable positive outcome from this city council 215 dispensary reductions plan, creating a spiteful victory only for those who dislike 215 dispensaries and would like to make life as difficult as possible for 215 patients.

Furthermore, during this time of state tax deficit crisis, why in the name of all that is logical would the Sacramento city council members vote to eliminate a regular tax base by shutting down over half of the currently operating and tax paying 215 dispensaries. One might be inclined to ask, what ARE THEY smoking over there in council chambers?

If you cannot make the rally or council event physically, please try to email Sacramento city council members and advise them to not support the dispensary reduction plans and instead work with 215 patients together to ensure positive outcomes with the currently operating 215 dispensaries.

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/council/

The City Council meets on Tuesdays at 6 p.m. at the new City Hall at 915 I Street on the first floor. Public comment will be at the beginning of the meeting.

Kevin Johnson
Mayor
Mayor's Office
916-808-5300


Sandy Sheedy
District 2
916-808-7002

Steve Cohn
District 3
916-808-7003


Robert King Fong
District 4
916-808-7004

Lauren Hammond
District 5
916-808-7005


Kevin McCarty
District 6
916-808-7006

Robbie Waters
Vice Mayor
District 7
916-808-7007

Bonnie Pannell
District 8
916-808-7008

The FAX number for all Council Members is 916-264-7680.


Background article;

By Peter Hecht
phecht [at] sacbee.com

"Last night city politicians presented an ordinance that would cap the number of medical marijuana dispensaries at 12, as well as placing tighter restrictions on how they operate (see link). The city meeting was packed with medical marijuana advocates and dispensary owners, who stated that such a proposal is unfair, and that lawsuits would be sure to follow. One dispensary owner put it into perspective when he said, “This proposal would kill myself and other patients in similar situations,” complained Ryan Landers a Sacramento senior adviser for the Compassionate Coalition. “You’re going to close clubs where hundreds of patients get marijuana. This is a huge problem for the sick.”

Sacramento City Manager Gus Vina defended the ordinance, claiming that it is needed. “There are a handful of cities that are trying to do something. And we’re one of them,” Vina said. “We don’t want to wind up like Los Angeles,” said City Councilwoman Lauren Hammon. “We don’t want to rush to do this, but we want to be timely.” Robert Shantz, an attorney for ‘The Sacramento Alliance of Collectives,’ said the ordinance is ‘prohibition masquerading as authorization.’

The plan includes:

1. A Lottery to decide which shops would be allowed to stay in business. Wow, are you kidding me? Other cities have placed moratoriums on new dispensaries, essentially ‘grandfathering’ in old dispensaries. I think that would have been a more rational approach then a ’12 winners take all’ approach.

2. Requires dispensaries to maintain hired security. This is probably a good idea anyways.

3. Bans the hiring of workers with felony convictions. I think it should matter WHAT KIND of felony you have on your record. If the only felony you have on your record is marijuana related, then you shouldn’t be banned from working in the medical marijuana industry. After all, such a person would have EXPERIENCE!

4. Requires shops to label their medicine with a disclaimer, stating that the dispensary assumes “risk of injury or harm” from any marijuana sold. That’s fine, considering NO ONE gets harmed or injured from medicinal cannabis.

5. Restricts dispensaries to commercial and industrial zones. This is nothing new. Every business in my home state of Oregon is required to be in a commercial/industrial zoned part of town. This rule applies to almost every kind of business on the West Coast, so I don’t think it is unreasonable.

6. Bans clubs within 300 feet of neighborhoods or 500 feet of churches, parks, schools, youth facilities or substance abuse centers. This provision isn’t as bad as LA’s which says you cannot be across the street from, or next to, a residential area. However, it’s harsher than most ordinances that require a 1,000 foot buffer zone.

One dispensary owner, Sonny Kumar of ‘El Camino Wellness Center,’ feels that the rules will crush almost every dispensary in the City of Sacramento. “It would result in only three locations where clubs or dispensaries would be left in the total city,” Kumar said. The City Council is expected to work on the proposed ordinance through May, and if approved, the ordinance could take effect in June or July."

article found @;
http://www.theweedblog.com/sacramento-to-limit-medical-marijuana-dispensaries/

also;
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/03/12/2601587/sacramento-marijuana-dispenseries.html