Two weeks after June 17’s somewhat contentious council meeting discussing and delaying the Santa Ana City Council’s proposed medical marijuana regulation initiative, the question in this title still seems valid. Because we’ve seen it so many times, in the struggle for medical marijuana justice and other struggles, that when it looks like an effort may be successful, the authorities will try to co-opt it, divert it, water it down, confuse the people, and hopefully (from their point of view) delay it or kill it altogether.
But when we looked at the details of the City’s June 17 proposal, there was a lot there that looked like a well-intentioned effort at the kind of reform and regulation MMJ advocates want – not as strong as the already-ballot-qualified NORML initiative, and with several problems, but still progress and probably more likely to pass, in a town full of socially conservative Latino voters. And when I heard that the driving force behind the City’s measure was Sal Tinajero, the Santa Ana councilman I’m most likely to trust, I was ready to give it the benefit of the doubt.
Santa Ana has been, like so many California cities, under the grip of a draconian but unenforceable BAN on all collectives and dispensaries. Unenforceable because the demand for marijuana, medical or not, is so great, and the law enforcement resources to enforce the ban so meager, that there’s a Wild West reality out there with about 60 dispensaries at any given moment, many of them not even following state law. A situation unacceptable to either side – neither the prohibitionists nor the advocates who want to pursue their business in a law-abiding way without advantage going to gangsters and lawbreakers.
The City’s idea is to allow a limited number of dispensaries in a limited area of Santa Ana, and tax them enough to fund the policing of the rest of the city for lawbreakers. Advocates had several criticisms of the City’s June 17 proposal, but the overriding one was that the City never met with advocates to work out all their concerns, and that delay was needed. And we got that delay.
Tinajero and staff still have not met with the advocates, and yet the amended proposal which the City released Friday and will discuss tomorrow night (Tuesday July 1, you can read it here) shows that they DID indeed listen to, and take into account, all the public comments and criticisms they heard June 17 – and how often does that happen, in how many cities? There are still a few small details that should be ironed out, but it looks like we’re on track to having the first OC city following the spirit of the Compassionate Use Act and regulating itself in a sensible way.
The positive changes (as well as a few restrictive but reasonable changes) are conveniently listed on pages 2-4 of the 60-page staff report:
- The most notable feature to be amended was the limit on number of collective/cooperatives, the areas in the city they could be (which was going to be restricted to the southwest and southeast industrial areas, near the airport and South Coast Plaza – too far for patients from the north and center of town to travel) and the minimum distance between facilities. Those three factors would have combined to allow no more than six or so facilities in the southeast and southwest. Now the cap has been removed, the minimum distance has been reduced to 500 feet, and it will be SUGGESTED there could also be two facilities per ward in those wards’ “professional” or “arterial/commercial” zones … which could allow for as many as 18 facilities in the city – much more reasonable for a town the size of Santa Ana!
- Some restrictions have been tightened: the hours for these facilities will be 10-8 except for Sundays 11-7; and you must be at least 21 to enter unless accompanied by an adult parent or guardian. This last bit worries advocates, since many folks who need medical marijuana are vets with PTSD and so on, a lot of whom are under 21.
- Several privacy-threatening measures were removed thanks to a warning letter from attorney Matt Pappas pointing out how those measures could be challenged in court.
- There’s more interesting stuff to look at there on page 3 – a possible “registration application and Regulatory Safety Permit” and a “Request for Proposals” instead of a lottery system – which will be discussed tomorrow night.
All of this still has to pass the council, and then be approved by voters in November. But it’s shaping up to look like actual progress, toward making a city where folks who need their medical marijuana can get it with nobody ending up raided or in jail. Another stop on the long march to where marijuana is as legal and regulated as the much more dangerous drug alcohol, of course. And our prisons drain out correspondingly. Since only one of the two competing initiatives can take effect, and since they both seem good, this blog will probably recommend Santa Ana voters to vote yes on both and let the most popular one win.
And this measure is just in time for the new, improved SB 1262, which is on track to becoming law real soon, is a lot improved from Lou Correa’s original bill, and will require cities to do what Santa Ana is now doing on its own.
Thanks Vern for the informative post…this topic sure has the neighbors talking. In our SA neighborhood, we have 2 dispensaries about 2000 feet away from a school yet certainly seeming to impact those who live much closer to the school. I believe that the initial proposed ordinance was to keep MMC’s at least 600 feet away from schools which as our neighborhood can attest certainly does not seem far enough away (it goes school, houses, 1 row of businesses, and then busy street all on the same street). I think that most would concede that you can’t really stop it (the police have been unsuccessfully trying to close them down for over 6 months now I believe) so you might as well regulate them…set their hours, set their distance, etc…
Hopefully the city can come up with a proposal that will address the concerns of our neighbors. I know that multiple people have indicated that they felt the signature gatherers were using questionable tactics,..i.e. keep MMC’s away from schools, when talking to parents at the school I am referring to knowing that the proposal would do nothing to address the MMC’s already in play. A competing ordinance may calm it down a bit.
Why should the city of Santa Ana take on the legal liability as the deep pockets for the deaths and injuries that will follow the passing of an ordinance allowing for the sale of a federally illegal drug?
The state of Colorado is now trying fix their law in light of the growing number of deaths and injuries from marijuana use. I would expect soon that the personal injuries lawsuit will start to pop up in that state in amounts that far exceed the tax monies they have collected.
Can’t help but laugh at that last statement. Whether cannabis is legal or not,its still extremely prevalent in its use around the country. Suddenly it becomes legal and because of that,people start dying from it? I don’t think so.
“Below is the total 2012 marijuana induced death toll for the world’s 50 most populated countries:
3. United States – 10,029,023
……………………………………….
…Anonymous , I believe you can’t see the forest because of the trees.
Oh brother. Where is that from, Cook?
Is that PEOPLE WHO DIED THAT YEAR, who also might have had a trace of THC in them, from the past thirty days? Probably….
Still looking for a credible report of ONE person who died from marijuana.
Wait, did 10 million Americans even die in 2012? One out of 30 or 35 of us? What a holocaust! How did we miss it?
It’s the pot, it’s gotta be.
Cook, if your going to say such things and expect anyone to take it at all seriously you need to provide the source of it! That’s a ridiculous number by anyone’s measure.
Carl, I don’t believe the number either and I don’t know where the publisher got their data.
But it has the same validity as Vern’s “Still looking for a credible report of ONE person who died from marijuana.”
You are not going to tell us where you got that 10 million, even just so we can all laugh at it together?
What about that story you told of someone who OD’d in Colorado? Is there a link for that?
Do you not know how to do links? Your little great-granddaughters could help you, the ones you brought to the last meeting to chant “No drug dealers in Santa Ana!”
By/Crimesider Staff/AP /April 18, 2014, 11:04 AM
Two Denver deaths tied to recreational marijuana use.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/two-denver-deaths-tied-to-recreational-marijuana-use/
………………………………
I lost the exact link, but some others reference the same 10 million number. Like I said I find it non-believable
………………………………….
. Six Ways Science Says Marijuana May Hurt Your Health
Becca Stanek @beccastanek June 27, 2014
http://time.com/2933349/marijuana-pot-danger-health-effects-science/
……………………………….
If you use the same kind of measurement for marijuana as is used for auto deaths and booze deaths and cigarettes, etc. I bet you can come up to that 10 million numbers I found on the internet.
………………….
I have not seen anyone provide an answer to who is going to pay the costs and cash awards for the wrongful death and injuries connected with city authorized MJ use?
Very funny Vern! GMTA!
*Yeah Chairman Vern, ain’t it great that you are not 18 again? The scientists say that 18 year olds lose 10 IQ points after 30 days of pot use. Of course, that does not count the new higher yeild THC that is around. Chariman Vern your 180 IQ could have been closer to 200….if you had just gotten control of your addiction to talking about legal pot.
The proposed Santa Ana initiative is for 21 and older. And I never did smoke much pot, was never my thing. So, do you two think it should continue to be illegal and put folks in jail, while alcohol is not? And, do you believe cook that 10 million Americans die every year from marijuana?
Im always fascinated by the chicken little cries of the sky is falling when it comes to cannabis. It just boggles the mind.
*”A well regulated multitude of pot farms being necessary for the common stoned demise…….the right of people to keep and smoke pot….shall not be infringed!” Of course we should be able to tax it like alcohol, regulate it like oil and energy products and quality assure it like we do with automobiles. There should be recalls, lawsuits and wrongful deception channels to the public by the District Attorney and State Attorney General’s offices. It should be entirely legal to sue under the Federal Statute and for Civil Punitive Damages. They should be under strict guidelines by the Food and Drug Administration and being be carefully monitored by the Federal Trade Commission for ripping off the public or dispensing Mega-Watt THC without a license. There should be a huge fine schedule by these agencies and the BATF should have the right to enter and look at anything being offered to the General Public – during normal business hours. The Operators of these Pot Dispenseries should lose or willingly give up their right to a CCW or to have firearms within reach of anyone on the property.
Why should anyone lose their 2nd amendment rights due to cannabis? No one who has a problem with alcohol loses their 2nd amendment rights. What gives?
Update, Kandice got to meet with staff yesterday and DID iron some small remaining problems out; also Sal did meet with her once, months ago, before this proposal was written. Just had to straighten that out.
There are exactly zero confirmed deaths from cannabis. Zero. Nada. None. People may die doing stupid things under the influence of cannabis. However these same people may have died doing stupid things under the influence of stupidity.
Not only does cannabis NOT lower IQ (that was a terrible study which conflated causality with correlation) it is NEUROPROTECTIVE. Yes, that is correct. Using cannabis is in fact the single best preventative measure for Alzheimer’s Disease.
*Denver report 30% of all DUI’s now include the use of your wonder drug – cannabis plus!
*Additionally, hemp is very good and useful rope. Actually used by the US Navy before WW I. The urban legend about pot being the miracle wonder drug may be over rated……. we know it does do one thing – causes sloth! Which of course is one of the seven deadly sins. But heck, we guess your own clinical study about the effects of cannabis will soon be published in the Chicago Journal of Medicine where we all can review the evidence in a totally unbiased and clinical fashion. Meanwhile, we will pass on those candy bars with 100MG of THC cannabis derivatives. Whoops, must be a Goldman-Sachs thing – did we say Derivatives?. What did they say in the 60’s “Forgive cause I’m stoned!” Followed quicly by: “You got any reds, whites or greens? How bout some acid?” or “Who made love to the dining room chair?” “Their doing qualudes….again…..and again….and again!” “Cocaine’s for horses not for men….they say it’ll kill ya, but they don’t say when….Cocaine….run all round my brain!”
Guess us old folks are just over reacting!
Good, hope they got big tickets. People shouldn’t be driving impaired. My pot smoking friends don’t.
Marijuana has been shown repeatedly to cause only very minor impairment to drivers compared to alcohol. Another fact. Also since THC stays in the blood far longer than alcohol, positive tests for it don’t indicate impairment. At all. Period. And yes, cannabis IS a wonder drug and was always regarded as such worldwide until an asshole bureaucrat who wanted more money for his federal agency started the war on marijuana. Since there are dozens of excellent books on the topic, not knowing this and then spouting out about it just makes people look like clueless idiots. Libraries exist however, so read some books and get a clue.
Yeah, yeah, I know all that, Professor. I’m just agreeing that anyone who drives while being too impaired to drive should get a ticket, whatever it is that’s impairing them. I’m not sure how Colorado is measuring that now, but it sure SHOULDN’T be traces of THC in the bloodstream. When Lou Correa tried that last year, his bill was laughed out of the legislature.
NEWS FROM OUR GUY AT THE MEETING:
The measure passed, pretty much the way I described it above, backed by Mayor Pulido, Sal Tinajero, Vince Sarmiento, and Angelica Amezcua, all of whom looked good. The other three looked “pissy.”
The two-per-ward didn’t make it, Santa Ana MMJ users will have to travel down to the southeast or southwest for their medicine (assuming this measure passes.)
Michele Martinez was hard to read two weeks ago, going off on weird tangents such as defensively denying that Santa Ana kids have drug problems “only South County kids do,” and then yelling at the City manager that it was “ridiculous” that the expected tax revenue may only be enough to fund one extra cop (along with a bunch of other compliance personnel.) Tonight she insisted that the council should have “shut-down authority.” This didn’t fly, so she voted against it.
And Benavides is a passionate prohibitionist, funny for a guy who’s so good on gay rights. They each have their strong points apparently. When I watched him June 17 with his one-note anti-drug preaching, I kept imagining a Puritan hat on him. Roman Reyna joined him in a substitute BAN motion, – EVEN THOUGH HE ADMITTED JUNE 17 THAT MMJ DID WONDERS FOR HIS ILL DAD – and the ban failed (with the flighty Michele abstaining.) Remember guys, you’ve already tried a ban, for the last few years!
Santa Ana voters should vote yes on both mmj measures this November. This one will probably have the most votes and it will definitely be progress for the city. But just in case, vote yes on the other one too.
Too bad the third option wasn’t put on the ballot. reaffirm the ban.
Now it will look like the voters must vote on either measure, how many voters will know that they can vote no on both?
Voters sure are STOOPID, cook. Next you’ll be saying they have no way to know anything about the judicial candidates. How do you deal with all these SHEEPLE in your poll work?
ALSO: Here you have representative democracy at work. The majority of the council – apparently five of them including Michele – know that the ban wasn’t working, so they’re suggesting to voters they try something new.
I bet most voters will be smart enough to know they can vote no on both if they dig the chaotic status quo.
“know that the ban wasn’t working, so they’re suggesting to voters they try something new”
It was lack of enforcement.
So even if one of these measure’s does pass in November, illegal recreational MJ will still go on, and maybe increase.
If that happens, will you say it ” wasn’t working” and call for a repeal?
http://santaana.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=84&meta_id=9915
link to 60 page ordinance. if it doesn’t link, go to agenda, then 55d, then staff report.
Did you miss the whole concept behind the council’s initiative?
There was lack of enforcement because there was no funding for enforcement.
Under this initiative, the legal collective/cooperatives down in the southwest and southeast [FAR FROM YOU AND YOUR YOUNG’UNS COOK] will pay beaucoup taxes, taxes which will be used to fund enforcement in the rest of the city.
I know you and Tom Gordon don’t think that makes sense, but it’s not a novel or new idea.
According to our SA City Manager at a meeting I attended:
-the City has a major surplus right now and expects it to continue,
-the City has allocated funds for additional police officers,
-they cannot hire officers fast enough (finding them, training them, etc…),
-the City has tried to shut down the illegal (by city standards) MMC’s,
-the City has been fining the illegal MMC’s,
-the MMC’s simply pay the city fines each time,
-the city is trying to civilly sue the MMC’s and the landlords,
-the owners of the MMC’s are avoiding service of lawsuits,
-the owners of the MMC’s seem to be chalking up the city’s efforts as a cost of doing businesse, a profitable one at that,
-etc…
Based upon his comments, I walked away thinking that the city was doing quite well financially and they could not get things up and running fast enough due to non-financial reasons. They want them shut down but have not been able to get through the red-tape… The issue with the MMC’s operating was not a fiscal issue, but instead a court and enforcement issue.
Funny … different impression than we got at the meetings we attended. Well, I’m glad SA’s fiscal house is in order.
I should try to find the handouts that they gave us…it was very very surprising the fiscal order the city was in compared to where we were a few years ago (with all that money you would think I could get my sidewalk fixed). They were very very frustrated with the MMC’s because of the fact that everything seemed to be going through the civil court system w/o support from the criminal side…they do not have the perceived power to enforce. I guess ultimately power to enforce can be measured by the response…no response = no power to enforce. Even if the SAPD could put a black and white outside of each of the MMC’s, what would they ultimately be able to do? Issue a parking ticket possibly? Expired tags?
I am actually thinking that the Council ultimately really wanted to put their own measure on the ballot not b/c they (Council, City Mgr, Police, etc…) want to have MMC’s in the City (some probably do) but instead b/c they are finding it so incredibly hard to fight profitable businesses that don’t respond to fines and they don’t want NORML’s initiative to pass….lesser of two evils possibly.
“Voters sure are STOOPID, cook” ( Vern)
ha ha I am glad you said that, during the discussion on adding the third alterative to vote for the continued ban, councilmember Sal said “that it would only confuse the voters”.
In other words, “Voters sure are STOOPID, cook”
A lot of people were there to make statements on medical marijuana. councilmember Sal asked the city attorney what is the current status of medical marijuana. The city attorney said “medical marijuana is legal in Santa Ana”
So that means one of these measures does not need to pass to make medical marijuana legal.
“Paraquat pot” ” is highly toxic to mammals, including humans;” “paraquat has been shown to be highly toxic by the inhalation route and has been placed in Toxicity Category I (the highest of four levels)” “cyclophosphamide (Endoxan) to treat Paraquat poisoning.[23] Death may occur up to 30 days after ingestion.”
How many pot smokers have the ability to check for foreign poisons in the stuff they smoke?
Uh-oh. A real, bonafide caffeine overdose death of a teenager!! I demand that all coffee shops and gas stations that sell no-dose be banned from my town! This is the level of idiocy of the anti-pot crusaders, though of course, cannabis doesn’t actually kill people, and caffeine does…Logan Stiner Died Of Caffeine Overdose Days Before Graduation – http://huff.to/1xdkEfO
I remember a couple years ago reading about a guy who died from a water overdose, in some drinking contest. Should we make this a REALLY dry county?
Vern, that’s the logic of all those who vote to sacrifice freedom at the alter of public safety.
If someone see the document containing the Council sponsored initiative, please post it. Seems that all MMC’s will be on the south end of town, have a 1K foot from home requirement, and 500 feet from each other requirement along with other items such as hours, taxes and such. Would love to know the details.
Hopefully SA voters will carefully consider both propositions and then vote for the one that they feel is best (or both if they are supportive of both). I believe that the Council approved initiative is more restrictive than the NORML sponsored initiative. I can certainly see someone supporting NORML being OK with Council as an alternative if the NORML one does not pass. However, there likely are quite a few who will not want NORML to pass but who may want the Council one…it will be a quandary for the supporters of the less restrictive NORML initiative because if they vote for both then the higher vote getting initiative will be in force whereas if they don’t vote for the Council one then they could be in danger of not having any proposal pass with a majority.
Pretty sure that there will be those in our neighborhood who will vote for the Council initiative but not the NORML one. I wonder if there will be those who vote for NORML but not Council…
The scary thing is that the city attorney indicated that there are 41 lawsuits against MMJ dispensaries right now (presuming that they are suits to shut them down) and that even if they win the case, they can appeal and it will take between a year and 18 months to shut them down.
I believe that the government entity that has the ability to ultimately shut them down, even if they are allowed under state and local law, will be the IRS…unless they are not deducting any of their operating expenses which is a hard pill to swallow as a business owner.
*Hasn’t the ridiculous results in Colorado told anyone anything? State Regulation is a must. State License Requirements, Bonded, no prior Felons operating, owning or working in these facilities please. Limit the concentration per capita and within City Limits. Let each city vote to approve or disapprove these shops just as they do for State Liquor Licenses. That is – if you really want to make it legal for eventual recreational use. If not, let the Oklahoma land rush begin! Boomer…Sooners…….eh?
Annual Causes of Death in the United States
Related Chapter:
Overdose
For facts about specific drugs, here’s a list of Controlled Substance sections.
Here’s the death stats from 2010 from the U.S. Note the last item.
1.(Annual Causes of Death, By Cause)
Cause of death (Data from 2010 unless otherwise noted) Number
All Causes 2,468,435
Diseases of Heart 780,213
Malignant Neoplasms [Cancer] 574,743
Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases 138,080
Cerebrovascular Diseases 129,476
Accidents (Unintentional Injuries) [Total] 120,859
Motor Vehicle Accidents [subset of Total Accidents] 35,332
Alzheimer’s Disease 83,494
Diabetes Mellitus 69,071
Nephritis, Nephrotic Syndrome and Nephrosis 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia 50,097
Drug-Induced Deaths1 40,393
Intentional Self-Harm (Suicide) 38,364
Septicemia 34,812
Chronic Liver Disease and Cirrhosis 31,903
Firearm Injuries 31,672
Essential Hypertension and Hypertensive Renal Disease 26,634
Alcohol-Induced Deaths 25,692
Parkinson’s Disease 22,032
Pneumonitis Due to Solids and Liquids 17,011
Homicide 16,259
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) 8,369
Viral hepatitis 7,564
All Illicit Drugs Combined (2000)2 17,002
Cannabis (Marijuana)3 0
2010 Drug Overdose Mortality Data In Detail as Reported By Paulozzi et al.4
Drug Overdose Total 38,329
Pharmaceutical Drugs 22,134
Pharmaceutical Opioid Analgesics 16,651
1 “Drug” includes both legal and illegal drugs.
2 Mokdad, Ali H., PhD, James S. Marks, MD, MPH, Donna F. Stroup, PhD, MSc, Julie L. Gerberding, MD, MPH, “Actual Causes of Death in the United States, 2000,” Journal of the American Medical Association, (March 10, 2004), G225 Vol. 291, No. 10, 1242.
3 No recorded cases of overdose deaths from cannabis have been found in extensive literature reviews, see for example Gable, Robert S., “The Toxicity of Recreational Drugs,” American Scientist (Research Triangle Park, NC: Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, May-June 2006) Vol. 94, No. 3, p. 207.
4 Paulozzi et al analyzed mortality figures and found that of 38,329 drug overdose deaths then reported in 2010, pharmaceutical drugs accounted for 22,134 deaths, of which 16,651 were opiod analgesic overdoses. The data was apparently revised slightly between the time the research letter was published in JAMA (February 2013) and release of the CDC’s Deaths: Final Data for 2010 publication report, officially dated May 8, 2013.
Source: Sherry L. Murphy, BS; Jiaquan Xu, MD; and Kenneth D. Kochanek, MA, Division of Vital Statistics, “Deaths: Final Data for 2010,” (Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control), Vol. 61, Number 4, May 8, 2013, Tables 9 and 10.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf
Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, Karin A. Mack, PhD, and Leonard J. Paulozzi, MD, “Pharmaceutical Overdose Deaths, United States, 2010,” Journal of the American Medical Association, February 20, 2013, Vol 309, No. 7, p. 658.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1653518
– See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death#sthash.1CBik1Jv.dpuf