Pubdate: Sun, 02 Feb 2014
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Copyright: 2014 San Jose Mercury News
Contact:  http://www.mercurynews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/390
Author: Scott Herhold
Webpage: B1

POT SURVEY CAUSES SOME CONFUSION

I'll admit straight off that I have never seen marijuana as one of
society's great evils. I tried it a couple of dozen times in my 20s
without understanding what the big deal was. So I come to the debate
over medical marijuana shops with a libertarian's shrug.

Nonetheless, I felt it was my civic duty to take the medical marijuana
survey that city officials say was started by a group of medical
cannabis advocates exploring a ballot initiative. ( See the survey at
www. goo.gl/oO6Seg.)

In December, the council took action to limit the city's 82 marijuana
dispensaries largely to industrial areas in the northern part of the
city by next summer. City officials tell me that an initiative would
be aimed at forestalling that move with lighter restrictions.

The questionnaire, circulated through a website called San Jose
United, seems designed to push people to embrace a protective radius
around schools or places where kids gather. This would allow some
shops-though not all - to stay in business.

The first question asked whether the city should regulate marijuana
shops, ban them or take no action. Holding to my principles, I checked
"take no action," which seemed to put me beyond the pale of the next
several questions.

A protective radius

Nonetheless, I soldiered on. Should the city "not allow" medical
marijuana stores within 1,000 feet of schools, day care centers,
libraries and parks? Presumably the pollsters meant "ban," though
their choice of words was confusing. I checked "no." How about 500
feet? 150 feet? This time, I hit "undecided."

Then the pollsters got even trickier by asking the inverse. Should the
city "not allow" day care centers, libraries, and parks within 1,000
feet of medical marijuana shops? And should schools be allowed to open
within 1,000 feet of pot collectives?

This was almost too much for my poor brain. Was this rhetorical
jousting? Had they smoked too much pot? Were they trying to suggest
that regulating marijuana collectives was akin to dictating where
schools, libraries and parks should go? I hit "yes" for the school
question and played with "undecided" for the rest.

Finally, the poll administered the death blow. If the city allowed
marijuana collectives within 150 feet of "residential uses," should
"residential uses" be allowed within 150 feet of medical marijuana
shops? I pondered the tautology for while. What was a "residential
use?" Did they mean homes? My garbage can is a "residential use." Did
that count?

Other states

The survey says that even states that have legalized marijuana for
recreational use-ergo, Colorado-have banned pot shops from locating
within 1,000 feet of schools. But I have to admit to being attracted
to the reasoning of Rich Robinson, a political consultant who has
represented the marijuana collectives.

"This is a bogus survey," Robinson told me. "The methodology is crazy.
If they base their analysis on this, people will laugh them out of any
policy debate.

"They ought to do a real survey, which allows them to decide based on
public responses what they should do at the end of the day," he added.

Whoops. There might be a little too much truth coming back from that
one. In a survey that's designed to advocate a point of view, candor
might be just too confusing.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt