Post a New Topic
City seeks input on pot club rules
Original post made
on Dec 6, 2010
A "very challenging" set of regulations on medical marijuana dispensaries in Mountain View needs some direction from the city's residents, says City Attorney Jannie Quinn.
Read the full story here Web Link
posted Monday, December 6, 2010, 10:12 AM
Posted by Joonathan Lustig
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 6, 2010 at 11:52 pm
My hope is that Thursday will be considered one of the momentous stepping stones along our cities path towards greatness.
Both, the violent crime rate and illegal youth usage of cannabis have steadily declined since we voted on medical cannabis in 1996. In the last 14 years, violent crime has dropped to a 40 year low (50 year low in L.A.) and youth usage has dropped to a 30 year low.
After almost a century worth of propagated propaganda and rhetoric (manifested and executed by the big business elite and our government) that methodically spread falsities throughout our society, we are finally striving closer to what civilizations around the world have known for over 10,000 years..Cannabis is one of the most beneficial medicinal substances to exist on earth while being considered benign when compared to all consumable commodities in our grocery store.
We carry an ethical responsibility to account for and to help accommodate our fellow citizens who are endlessly enduring anguish and distress inflicted on them by a disease, disorder or a disability.
Proposition 215 specifies that "ill patients have the right to obtain and possess marijuana". The spirit of the proposition is quite clear to me.. we passed a law that would allow patients to "obtain" cannabis from somewhere legal, safe and affordable. Forcing them to the streets to "obtain" their medicine through a cartel pawn, whose main objectives are to profiteer by selling cocaine and amphetamines to children, is immoral and utterly irresponsible.
Not embracing and supporting the sick and suffering would be cruel, cowardly and shameful. Three words that I don't believe describe the character of our wonderful city.
How we do it is not as simple as addition nor is it as difficult as rocket science.
When I approached the city council back in 2005 there were hundreds of facilities located throughout the state which we could have analyzed and learned from. Now there are potentially thousands.
The 1,000 foot barrier might be sufficient if the measurement was done using "sidewalk or roadway" feet instead of "linear" feet. I have never understood why, with the technology that we have today, that we would apply distance barriers that expand over people's private property. One establishment would be allowed to locate 1,001 feet straight down the street from a "sensitive area" but an establishment that would require perhaps 2,000 feet of walking/driving distance is not allowed because it is less than 1,000 feet for a bird to fly to. Bizarre.
In a perfect world Cannabis centers could function without accepting cash. I understand and respect the police chiefs position and concern about having cash on-site. There are polices and safeguards that can be abided by to ensure the integrity of the facilities and minimize the possibility of any robbery or burglary. The L.A. police chief announced several months ago that banks (even while excluding outside atm's and outside bank branches) were statistically almost 5 times more likely to be robbed than a cannabis dispensary inside their city.
I would welcome cannabis centers that were restricted to only credit/atm card transactions if they were plausible or fair, but unfortunately they would not be;
1.We have a constitutional right to privacy as well as a right not to incriminate ourselves. Yes, theoretically because the federal government still says "marijuana has no proven medical value" and can prosecute an individual accordingly, we would be forcing patients to submit to forfeiting both rights by requiring mandatory signatures on purchases.
2.There are many people who do not have credit cards nor do they have bank accounts. Excluding a minority is disenfranchising and not morally acceptable.
3.Even though the city attorney stated that she is familiar with cities that have implemented such a guideline, I have not personally heard of this and I do not believe enforcing such a policy on a patient would be legal. Cash only, yes..Credit card only, no.
It is true that there is data, although very limited, about a fungus within cannabis (when improperly grown) that has caused problems for people with weak respiratory systems. There was a case back in 1986 where the doctors hypothesized that the fungus could have potentially expedited the death of a patient who had lung cancer. A person with lung cancer shouldn't be smoking anything at all. The fungus that the hypothetical conclusion was based off of is noticeable to the naked eye and would never be given to patients by any respectable well run wellness center. In 10,000 years of worldwide cannabis consumption there have been 0 definitive documented cases specifying an overdose or an allergic reaction which has resulted in death. Testing for mold is not necessary when it can be detected with our eyes, without machinery or the expense. I do suggest facilities should test their medicine for T.H.C. and CBD content so that their patients are aware of the medicinal strength of the strains that they are inhaling or ingesting.
Attempting to deny people access to a grocery store or a gas station because they live in a different city would be absurd. Prohibiting patients from accessing their medication in our city because of their residency would be unprincipled and blatantly wrong.
I don't believe in establishing caps on any type of establishment as well. Monopolies are inequitable and at times they become problematic. Perhaps a "pilot" type program should be created where only 2-4 are allowed for the first year or two, and then have another educated and informed decision about lifting the restriction or continuing it.
There is no doubt in my mind that intellectuals in Mountain View can achieve our goal of having envied and admired cannabis wellness centers here for those who desperately need access to their medication. The betterment of our society and humanity, depend on us.
I find it interesting and very disappointing as well that many people have conveyed to the Voice how disgusting and ignorant it is to use "pot" verbiage. The term "pot" is equivalent to the "n" word or referring to me as a "cr*cker". The term was derived with anti-mexican sentiment in mind and spread with evil intent. Its use only allows disgracefulness and immorality to continue on. In 2005 I wrote a guest editorial for the MV Voice and even though I had titled it "Our County's Patients Deserve Medical Cannabis", they change my word "Cannabis", to "Pot". I was told it was because only "Pot" would fit in the title line, sure…
I have been censored two other times online by the Voice;
1.I had responded to someone who had stated patients are "just stoners trying to get high" by saying "Paul, you're a genis" without the "u". The Voice censored it saying I violated the terms of service..Perhaps it would have been justifiable if they would have also filtered out people ridiculing, demeaning and persecuting patients by calling them "delinquents", "detriments to society", "low lifes", "people with poor hygiene", "people who stink", and of course "potheads". All that seems to be ok with the Voice but Im prohibited from sarcastically calling someone a "genis"…suspicious.
2.Just recently on another thread I saw someone again commenting that 'all patients were lying' about benefiting from cannabis so I replied with "anyone who states that is def*cat*ng and ur*nat*ng on moms with ms, dads with chron's disease, sisters with epilepsy, brothers with ptsd..The voice not only censored that 5 percent of my comment, they eliminated it in its entirety. The rest had nothing to do with shaming anyone and in-fact I was attempting to share some valuable information pertaining to cannabis with the online community…suspicious indeed.
If this wasn't the grand city that I grew up in, maybe I wouldn't care as much about the Voice being biased. But our honorable city deserves better than that. Not only do you owe it to the residents, Voice, you owe it to the founder of our newspaper.
I look forward to a serious, open, honest and educational discussion this Thursday..See you all there.