Pubdate: Tue, 07 Apr 2015
Source: Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA)
Copyright: 2015 The Press-Enterprise Company
Contact: http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/letters_form.html
Website: http://www.pe.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/830

DISAPPROVAL NOT ENOUGH REASON TO BAN DISPENSARIES

Prominently featured on the city of Riverside's website is discussion 
of a city-commissioned poll on Measure A, the medical marijuana 
initiative on the June 2 ballot, showing opposition from a majority 
of those surveyed.

The poll, which cost more than $25,000, surveyed 400 residents on 
matters of medical marijuana, taxes and approval of various city 
officials. As valuable as public opinion polling is, it isn't a 
substitute for thorough, well-reasoned policy development.

"This poll demonstrates that the majority of Riverside residents 
strongly oppose opening marijuana dispensaries within our city and, 
instead, support the existing ban," read a statement from Mayor Rusty Bailey.

The city of Riverside is well within its legal right to prohibit 
medical marijuana dispensaries. What matters, though, is whether the 
exercise of force to suppress such establishments is necessary and 
prudent. Majority support or opposition does not speak to either of 
these things.

As to whether it is necessary, issues like public safety come to 
mind. If permitting dispensaries causes more crime, it may be 
justified to prohibit them. The evidence on this, including research 
funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, suggests that they 
are not, in aggregate, associated with increased crime.

Specific public safety issues cited by the city in years past, 
including its ban on mobile medical marijuana delivery services, have 
centered on claims that marijuana dispensers can be robbed and that 
children can accidentally ingest marijuana.

It is possible that those engaged in the grey-market and black-market 
marijuana dispensation are at higher risk of crime and that bringing 
the businesses above ground may reduce the likelihood of 
victimization. Drug dealers usually don't call the cops.

There is also the argument that, with a greater public access to 
marijuana, small children will have more opportunities to harm 
themselves by ingesting the drug, an argument made by the city in years past.

Of course, the presence of guns and swimming pools, both legal, also 
are associated with many accidental deaths. Banning those things, and 
countless others, could be rationalized on the basis of a potential 
risk to children.

It may be that marijuana dispensaries are simply undesirable 
businesses, from the perspective of city officials and even other 
types of businesses. With the city having spent hundreds of thousands 
of dollars in pursuit of prohibition, and no clear threat 
demonstrated to public safety, simple disapproval seems a low 
standard for such a costly endeavor.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom