Pubdate: Sat, 09 Jun 2012
Source: Bakersfield Californian, The (CA)
Copyright: 2012 The Bakersfield Californian
Contact:  http://www.bakersfield.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/36
Author: Ric Llewellyn
Note: Ric Llewellyn is one of three community columnists whose work
appears here every Saturday. These are the opinions of Llewellyn, not
necessarily The Californian.

MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROPONENTS: PROVE YOU CAN FOLLOW NEW RULES

How many times do we have to just say NO before the pot interests get 
the message? I think they keep forgetting. So let's say it one more time: "No."

Our voice as a community has been clear. This time it was 69 percent 
to 31 percent. The accommodations afforded under Measure G are good 
enough. We don't want to indulge the marijuana industry further.

Why should we? The California law that legitimizes dispensaries and 
allows state residents to produce and possess pot for personal -- 
supposedly medicinal -- use does not compel communities to 
complaisantly implement those policies.

So, late last summer the Board of Supervisors took decisive action to 
severely curtail personal production of marijuana and to prohibit the 
operation of dispensaries.

The cultivation ordinance went along the path of litigation and 
stands today. But medical marijuana activists quickly lit into the 
Board with a citizens' referendum on Ordinance G-8191, the 
prohibition of dispensaries.

The Board of Supervisors had taken a bold position for the security 
and stability of our community. It appeared to have been 
overwhelmingly supported by Kern's residents. Like Supervisor Ray 
Watson, I actually looked forward to voting on the outright ban 
enacted by the original ordinance.

But the Board felt some pressure to revisit its decision. The 
Supervisors heard quite a bit of testimony from the public and plenty 
of legal research was done. In the end they took the advice of County 
Counsel Theresa Goldner and substituted a strict alternative 
ordinance regulating the siting and operation of dispensaries.

The new ordinance is not a ban but it is very demanding. And 
rightfully so. Medical marijuana activists have never respected the 
perceptions of the community regarding the impacts of dispensaries on 
businesses and neighborhoods.

New regulations will limit dispensaries to specific land use types. 
This requirement may be irksome to dispensary operators, but it is 
not a de facto prohibition as marijuana proponents complain.

The new ordinance also limits the proximity of a dispensary to 
schools, parks, churches and daycare centers. This condition may seem 
unreasonable to a potential dispensary operator, but it provides a 
reasonable buffer for children and families against the so-called 
secondary effects of dispensaries.

New regulations require dispensary owners to comply with development 
and operational standards that address safety and security while 
running a business like a medical marijuana dispensary.

And there is a new application process that must be followed to 
develop a particular location. But there is also a timely and fair 
process for review and approval -- or denial and appeal -- 
established by the new ordinance.

The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 loosely gave California's 
collective consent for sick people to use pot without fear of state 
criminal sanction. In 2003 Senate Bill 420 further defined how that 
approval would be obtained and regulated.

No communities or their local governments were required to facilitate 
the production, processing, distribution or use of marijuana. Our 
local government has chosen to take a very strict position through 
the years as we continue to deal with this issue.

So what's next? Pot advocates suggest "dispensaries" will go 
underground. Nicely done. We already think medical marijuana 
businesses are just a shade of gray from being criminal enterprises. 
You just reinforced that perception.

Legal action and more petitions? No doubt; and it is becoming 
tiresome. So as a person who stands in opposition to the "medical 
marijuana" racket I have some advice.

Get on a more constructive and conciliatory path. Embrace the mood of 
the community at large. Show your legitimacy, if there is any, and 
start working within the regulations you now face.

Cultivation is allowed in Kern County and is regulated by certain 
rules. Dispensaries can operate in the county subject to specific 
rules. Just follow the rules!

Recycling businesses, radiology labs and auto repair shops follow 
their rules. Instead of further alienating most of the people of Kern 
County, medical marijuana proponents should pour their energy into compliance.

Businesses have had to deal with zoning restrictions and health and 
safety regulations for decades. Look around. They seem to find a way.

The onus of the medical marijuana controversy is back on its 
proponents. I hope they choose a course of cooperation instead of confrontation.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom