Pubdate: Thu, 17 May 2012
Source: Bakersfield Californian, The (CA)
Copyright: 2012 The Bakersfield Californian
Contact:  http://www.bakersfield.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/36

NO ON G: DON'T STYMIE ACCESS TO MEDICAL POT

California voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996, giving "seriously 
ill Californians ... the right to obtain and use marijuana for 
medical purposes" as recommended by a physician.

The practical implementation of Prop. 215 has been messy, 
contradictory and confusing, and it conflicts with federal law. 
Subsequent state regulations on the issue have tempered one problem 
while creating others. And local governments have passed a patchwork 
of regulations -- and faced ensuing court battles over their legality.

Measure G is Kern County's latest attempt to regulate medicinal 
marijuana in unincorporated areas.

It would limit storefront dispensaries to areas that have been zoned 
for industrial uses and are at least one mile from churches, schools, 
parks, day care centers and other "sensitive" uses -- including other 
storefront collectives or cooperatives. In reality, the measure 
creates a scant few locations in the entire unincorporated county 
where a dispensary could feasibly exist.

County officials contend there is plenty of space available -- but in 
some cases nonprofit dispensaries would have to take extraordinary 
steps such as developing vacant land in outlying areas or even 
building the access to that land.

The Californian opposes Measure G because it so severely limits 
access to marijuana for suffering patients that it violates the 
original intent of voters who passed Prop. 215.

County supervisors say Measure G is needed because dispensaries 
invite crime and create nuisances in the neighborhoods where they 
operate. Fifth District Supervisor Karen Goh told KGET-TV that the 
ordinance ensures "our children are protected and businesses are 
protected." But where is the evidence that dispensaries have put 
communities in danger?

There may be occasional break-ins or robberies, but every storefront 
operation is subject to such crime. Some dispensaries have been used 
as cover for illegal drug sales, but that's not reason to punish all 
dispensaries.

Measure G is more the result of a select few county officials being 
ideologically opposed to medicinal marijuana.

The county had a workable system for regulating dispensaries in place 
until Donny Youngblood became sheriff and refused to carry it out. 
Like-minded supervisors used Youngblood's rigid position as an 
opportunity to get rid of unsightly dispensaries in their districts.

That's why they passed an ordinance banning dispensaries last year. 
Measure G is only on the ballot because medicinal marijuana advocates 
secured the tens of thousands of votes to overturn that ban, forcing 
the county to go to voters with a referendum. Why didn't they just 
write Measure G as an outright ban? Because in the meantime the 
complete prohibition of dispensaries became legally questionable so 
the county had to get creative.

So much is in flux at the federal, state and local levels that 
California might not be able to fulfill the original intent of the 
Compassionate Use Act for years, if ever. The current system of 
collectives and storefront dispensaries is rife with problems, but at 
least it honors the law's intent -- helping cancer patients and 
others who live with chronic pain. By contrast, Measure G would 
implement an effective ban. The county has not made clear what 
pressing need is addressed by Measure G that justifies making it 
harder for patients to alleviate their pain, other than satisfying 
the ideological leanings of a select few county officials.

Vote no on Measure G.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom