Pubdate: Mon, 25 Aug 2014
Source: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
Copyright: 2014 Sun-Sentinel Company
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/mVLAxQfA
Website: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/159
Author: Aaron Deslatte
Page: 6B

WILL MEDICAL-POT CENTERS END UP IN LOW-INCOME AREAS?

TALLAHASSEE - Here's one aspect of Florida's medical-marijuana debate 
getting little airplay: Would the dispensaries be crowded into poor 
and minority neighborhoods?

If voters statewide pass Amendment 2 this fall, the dispensaries have 
to open somewhere. Critics of legalizing marijuana such as Attorney 
General Pam Bondi and others have warned it could lead to 
pill-mill-like explosions of dispensaries "on every street corner." 
But there is some evidence that they may be concentrated in poorer, 
urban and disproportionately minority areas, not suburban strip malls.

A new study published this month in the Journal of the American 
Planning Association found evidence that the dispensaries are being 
concentrated in poorer, minority communities within states that have 
already legalized medical marijuana.

University of Colorado Denver urban planning researchers Jeremy 
Nemeth and Eric Ross find evidence that land-use regulations adopted 
in cities where medical marijuana is legal are more likely to steer 
dispensaries to lower-income, higher-minority areas.

They call it classic NIMBYism ("not in my backyard"): Although 23 
states have legalized medical marijuana and 73 percent of the 
population nationally favored doing so in a 2010 Pew poll, 44 percent 
said they would be "somewhat or very concerned" if a dispensary 
opened near their home.

Even though there's little evidence yet that dispensaries lead to 
increased crime or reduced property values, a handful of studies have 
found people fearful they would.

States that have legalized medical pot have also tended to 
marginalize the establishments through the kinds of local operations 
restrictions, zoning regulations and licensing requirements used for 
socially unwanted uses such as sex shops, homeless centers, halfway 
houses or liquor stores.

Cities are creating buffer zones for marijuana dispensaries, 
prohibiting them within day cares, parks, churches and rehab centers. 
Sacramento has enacted a 600-foot buffer around movie theaters 
(presumably comic-book flicks and pot cookies are a bad combination).

"Given that most would people prefer not to live near these 
facilities, planners must recognize the potential equity implications 
of these land use policies," the authors write.

Florida already has some real-world ramifications to consider, now 
that a form of medical marijuana - the nonbuzz variety known as 
Charlotte's Web - is legal. The regulatory debate and lobbying this 
summer has focused on who could buy and grow pot. Not where it might 
be sold. If the amendment passes, the Department of Health would have 
until October 2015 to develop regulations, and zoning restrictions 
could wind up being delegated entirely to local governments.

Evidence of how locals react in other states is disconcerting. The 
potential of foisting another "undesirable" land use on the urban 
poor has obvious economic and social-equity implications for 
communities that state policymakers may want to give some attention to now.

But because the GOP-controlled Florida Legislature has opposed the 
amendment, it seems unlikely state policymakers would try to pre-empt 
cities and counties from restricting pot facilities trying to open in 
the richer, whiter parts of town.

"What does this all mean for local tax dollars, labor markets and the 
state's economic landscape?" the authors ask. "As legalization 
efforts increase across the country, many planners will be faced with 
these issues."

Given the overwhelming majority of voters appearing to back the 
amendment, planners may want to start now.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom