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