Pubdate: Fri, 25 Feb 2011
Source: San Bernardino Sun (CA)
Copyright: 2011 Los Angeles Newspaper Group
Author: Steve Ruddick


San Bernardino County used junk science and old sin-laws to ban 
medical marijuana dispensaries as a "vice" industry because such 
things might have "adverse secondary" effects (increased vice).

The Inland Valley Drug-Free Community Coalition is against all sinful 
and immoral behavior, like smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol, or 
watching an adult porn movie in the privacy of your own home. When 
IVDFCC says "drug-free" they mean no tobacco or alcohol or caffeine 
for anybody, too.

That amounts to IVDFCC imposing their morals on me.

IVDFCC uses sinful and immoral behavior to try to ban medical 
marijuana dispensaries because they believe lawful marijuana medicine 
is a sinful and immoral vice; it's a "drug" so it must be bad.

When medical marijuana advocates suggest that dispensaries be 
regulated like other similar vice-related industries, IVDFCC objects 
because it is against all vice in any form anywhere. Catch-22.

That is called hypocrisy and trying to legislate morality.

The sheriff's "white paper" is simply junk science because it has not 
been peer-reviewed by any reputable group such as the state 
Department of Justice or the Attorney General.

The fact is, the county development code currently allows any 
"adult-oriented business" to open a storefront and dispense "vice" in 
any general commercial zone anywhere in the county, subject to a 
conditional-use permit. These storefronts dispense tobacco, booze, 
massages, tattoos and body piercings. Absolutely shameful.

The current ordinance to ban medical marijuana dispensaries will fail 
in court, much like the county's previous efforts. It is not 
reasonable to assume that "adverse secondary" impacts will occur in 
absolutely every location where a medical marijuana dispensary might 
locate because similar (obnoxious, incompatible and "sinful") uses 
already exist in close proximity and such "adverse secondary" impacts 
do not exceed acceptable levels (above the average crime rate) in 
those instances.

The county knows it is facing a losing battle in court and yet it 
persists in pursuing this ban. The county is simply trying to drag 
its feet to delay and defer the inevitable. Me thinks county counsel 
is either asleep at the wheel or incompetent.


Angelus Oaks
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom