New Restrictions on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in San Diego - Research Paper Example

? New Restrictions on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in San Diego Pros, Cons and Solutions Introduction Medical marijuana cooperatives should not be subjected to onerous restrictions, but, rather, the good dispensaries should be allowed to remain open while the bad dispensaries should be forced to shut their doors. This thesis statement is related to the fact that the city of San Diego recently voted 5-2 to put onerous restrictions on the medical marijuana cooperatives that are located within their city limits. These restrictions would force the cooperatives to shut down for the period of one year, and, after that one year is up, they must apply for expensive permits and will be restricted to operating only within industrial limits. This essentially will make the very sickest of San Diegans go to the black market to obtain the drug, because many of these San Diegans rely upon public transportation. Locating these cooperatives in industrial zones will take the cooperatives out of reach of public transportation modes, such as trolleys and buses. Although the other side does have valid points, in that many of the cooperatives have abused their privileges, as these cooperatives are selling to individuals who do not have medical marijuana cards, this is not true of all cooperatives. Therefore, the only fair regulation of the cooperatives would be to examine all cooperatives thoroughly, and separate the wheat from the chaff. The cooperatives which are serious, in that they only sell to individuals with valid medical cards, should be allowed to stay open and stay within the city limits. The others will simply have to close. This is the only way to please the people who are concerned about the abuses associated with these cooperatives, while ensuring that the very sickest continue to get the treatment that they need and deserve. Examination of the Issue The City Council of San Diego voted, 5-2, on March 26, 2011, to put restrictions on the medical marijuana dispensaries located within the city.1 These restrictions would close down the dispensaries for one year, then, after the year is up, the dispensaries may only operate in industrial zones .2 The final ordinance is a slight improvement over what was proposed. In the original proposed ordinance, dispensaries would have to apply for permits while going through the strictest permit approval process in the city, which would be a Process 4. Process 4 also covers new airports and mines.3 The proposed ordinance also would have required that the dispensaries, after the one year ban, would only be able to open up in areas that are more than 1,000 feet of churches, schools, child care facilities, libraries, parks, youth facilities and other dispensaries. 4 While this was the proposed ordinance, the city council, after hearing testimony from concerned citizens, voted to reduce the 1,000 feet requirement to 600 feet, and to reduce the Process 4 permit process to a Process 3, which is less onerous.5 City councilman Todd Gloria indicated that the 1,000 foot requirement was reduced to 600 feet, as the 1,000 foot requirement would have forced the dispensaries out of the communities that most support them, namely Ocean Beach and Hillcrest.6 However, the city council did nothing about the part of the ordinance that requires that the dispensaries only locate within industrial zones and did nothing about the requirement that every dispensary must close down for one year before re-opening.7 The cost of a permit would be high, from $25,000 to $35,000.8 The proposed ordinance will come up for a second and final vote on April 12, 2011.9 The dispensaries opened up when California passed Proposition 215, by a margin of 55.6% to 44.4% in 1996. It was the first state ever to pass such as law.10 When Proposition 215 passed, language regarding medical marijuana was added to the California Health and Safety Code that stated, in effect, that purposes of the Compassionate Use Act 1996 is to protect individuals from prosecution if they possess marijuana that is legally prescribed by a doctor, as well as protect the doctors who prescribe the marijuana.11 Although the Compassionate Use Act 1996 specifies some diseases for which a doctor may prescribe medical marijuana, such as anorexia, AIDS, glaucoma, migraines, arthritis and cancer, the Act does not limit the use of medical marijuana to these diseases, but, rather, states that medical marijuana can be prescribed for “any other illness.”12 Since the passage of this law, some 165 dispensaries have opened in the City of San Diego.13 In response to the threat of the ordinance passing, medical marijuana advocates and owners of cooperatives met on April 5, 2011, in La Jolla to discuss plans to bring lawsuits against the city, along with discussing other political strategies to fight the ordinance taking effect.14 The proponents of medical marijuana have vowed to continue to put political pressure on the city councilpersons, and, if the ban is approved in a final vote, to bring lawsuits on behalf of the cooperatives. The cost of future litigation , according to some estimates, will be as much as $40,000.15 Pros and Cons This is a difficult issue, because both sides make valid points. The proponents of this measure state that dispensaries need to be regulated, because there is too much abuse of the system. For instance, there is the problem that teenagers have ready access to the medical marijuana. Bonita Gilman, who is in her late teens, stated that the medical marijuana dispensaries made it easy for teenagers like her to get marijuana, despite the fact that the Compassionate Use Act specifies that only individuals over the age of 18 would be eligible for medical marijuana. Gilman states that some of her friends waited until they were 18, then saw a doctor about headaches or anxiety and were able to get a medical marijuana ID card. From there, the marijuana was passed around to younger friends.16 The problem of teenagers having access to marijuana is an especially dangerous one, according to Shirley Forbing, who is a professor at San Diego State University. According to Forbing, a person’s brain is still developing until the age of 25, and marijuana, with its 423 chemicals, has a harmful effect on developing brains. Because of this, Forbing believes that nobody under the age of 25 should have access to the medical marijuana cards.17 On the other end are doctors who prescribe the medical marijuana. Currently, there is no central database tracking which doctors are prescribing the drug, and which individuals are receiving these prescriptions, so there is no real oversight over the doctors who prescribe the drug.18 Moreover, there are financial incentives for doctors to write marijuana prescriptions. Scott Chipman, chairman of San Diegans for Safe Neighborhoods, states that “there are a handful of doctors who decided to get rich off of marijuana, and they write almost all of the prescriptions.”19 In other words, doctors who “decide to get rich off of marijuana” are not tracked by any database, therefore there is not a deterrent put into place that might modify their behavior. Other objections are that the dispensaries operate as a kind of “back door legislation.” So says Marcy Beckett, a mother who fears that the medical marijuana dispensaries are too lax, as are the doctors who write the prescriptions, which means that anybody with $40 can get a medical marijuana card to buy pot at these dispensaries. People who legally buy pot can distribute it to others who do not qualify for medical marijuana.20 Related to this is the concern that these cooperatives increase recreational drug use, as the cooperatives are acting for-profit. This is against the Compassionate Use Act, in that cooperatives are required to act as not for profit businesses.21 Still another objection is that cooperatives are unethical, in that they sell to individuals who do not even have a medical marijuana card.22 While these are the arguments that proponents of the ordinance believe, there are also compelling arguments on the other side of the issue. First and foremost, opponents of the ordinance see it as overly burdensome to sick people who are reliant upon the drug. As many of the sickest individuals rely upon public transportation, the ordinance would make it impossible for these individuals to get the drug, as the cooperatives will no longer be located inside city limits, as the cooperatives will be located in industrial areas.23 One such individual is Michael Corbett, a Vietnam vet. He relies upon medical marijuana for arthritis, depression and post-traumatic stress (PTSD). He also relies upon public transportation, and fears that he will no longer have access to the drug, even when the cooperatives are allowed to re-open.24 The ordinance will force individuals such as Corbett and the father of Brianna Lenville, who is on oxygen and reliant upon medical marijuana, to get the drug on the black market, as they will no longer have access to the dispensaries (Conlan). Reverend Mary Richardson also made an impassioned plea against the ordinance, stating that the ordinance targets the sick, and that the sick need compassion. Richardson states that she sees, first hand, the benefits of medical marijuana in her congregation. The individuals who Richardson cites as having benefited from the drug include an 80 year old who was suffering pain from a fall. The woman could not take prescription drugs, because the prescription drugs made her nauseous, and medical marijuana was the only thing that helped. With the new ordinance, this 80 year old woman would not be able to obtain the drug, because the woman depends upon public transportation.25 My Views This issue is a difficult one, although there are answers that are less restrictive than the ones that the San Diego city council passed. On the one hand, the medical marijuana cooperatives were operating too freely, apparently. Many of the cooperatives were shown to be a front for selling marijuana to individuals who do not really need the drug, and the arguments by teenagers that marijuana is readily available to them because the cooperatives sold to their friends who really did not have medical issues, is compelling. Moreover, there does not seem to be much regulation of the doctors who prescribe the drug. Because of this, the doctors have too much of a profit motive to write medical marijuana prescriptions to virtually anybody who wants them. That said, the other side of the argument is just as compelling, perhaps moreso. The fact of the matter is, there are sick people, really sick people, and medical marijuana is what helps them. People with cancer who are nauseated by chemotherapy use the drug to cure their nausea and vomiting. Individuals with HIV use the drug to enhance their sense of well-being and to maintain their weight. People with Hepatitis C use the drug to help them get through their treatment protocols. Glaucoma sufferers find relief with the drug, as it controls their ocular pressure, and, without their ocular pressure being controlled by the drug, they would suffer vision deterioration and pain. People with multiple sclerosis use the drug, as it has been shown to alleviate muscle spasms.26 These are the individuals who will be most affected by the ordinance, because, during the one year moratorium, they will not access at all to the drug. Then, even after the moratorium is over, they will have limited access. Many sufferers, who rely upon public transportation, will not have any access at all. Therefore, it seems that the ordinance throws the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. In other words, the rationale behind the ordinance seems to be that some of the cooperatives are unethical, therefore all cooperatives will be subject to the severe restrictions proposed by the ordinance. This seems unfair, because not all cooperatives operate in an unethical manner. There are some good cooperatives and some bad ones. Some cooperatives take their mission seriously, while others are in it for the money.27 It does not make sense to just do a blanket ban on all the cooperatives and make all cooperative relocate out of the city. What would make more sense would be to determine which cooperatives are serious cooperatives and which ones are not. The ones that are not would be closed down. The ones who show that they are serious, and have always been serious, would be able to stay open. Dale Geiringer, who was one of the authors of Proposition 215, stated that the city of Oakland is the model to follow. In that city, the city staff examined each cooperative to determine which ones were bad and which were good. They shut down the bad ones, while allowing the rest to remain open, and, according to Geiringer, this solved the problems that the cooperatives brought.28 In my view, this is the best way to move forward on the issue. Just as there are bad apples in every bunch, there are undoubtedly bad dispensaries. These dispensaries, the ones who are acting as de facto drug dealers, should be shut down and never allowed to re-open. The goods ones should be able to remain open within city limits, and these dispensaries should not be forced to shut their doors for any period of time. To do otherwise would be forcing the very sickest among us to go without treatment that helps them in their daily lives with such issues as pain and nausea. Moreover, unethical doctors must be targeted. Cooperatives cannot necessarily be blamed for selling to people who do not really need the drug, if the individual has a medical marijuana card. The real problem, in my view, is that doctors are overprescribing the drug, particularly doctors who see medical marijuana as a way to profit. There currently is not a database that keeps track of the doctors who prescribe the drug, and this is the first thing that needs to be put into place. This will allow the state to keep track of the doctors who disproportionately prescribe the drug. From there, these doctors can be monitored and regulated, to ensure that these prescriptions are being properly made. Perhaps the state can conduct sting operations, in which an undercover police officer goes into the doctors who overprescribe and attempt to get a card without showing legitimate medical reason. Then, if the doctor prescribes, the doctor will be brought up on ethics charges. This is just an idea for targeting doctors, who are probably most of the problem anyhow. Conclusion Medical marijuana is a controversial issue, and there are good arguments on both sides of the debate about the San Diego ordinance that will restrict these dispensaries. That said, there is no need to target all dispensaries simply because there are some unethical ones out there. This would really be tantamount to banning all doctors because of a few bad doctors. Just as that proposal sounds ludicrous, so must this one that the city of San Diego passed. Yes, the dispensaries are a problem in many communities. Yes, some dispensaries are undoubtedly selling to people who do not have a medical marijuana card. While there is undoubtedly a problem, the ordinance that passed seems akin to killing a fly with a hatchet – it is just overkill. Regulating the problem by letting good dispensaries remain open, with regular inspections of these dispensaries, while shutting down the bad ones, is the best solution for all involved. Regulating doctors who prescribe the medicine is the other necessary prong. If these two things occur, the problems with the dispensary will most likely be negated, and the people who really need the drug can continue to get it. This solution is the best for all involved. Works Cited Cadelego, Christopher. “San Diego Approves Sweeping Medical Pot Limits.” Sign On San Diego. 28 March 2011. 8 April 2011. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/mar/28/sd-council-approves-sweeping-medical-pot-restricti/# “California Proposition 215 Was the First Statewide Medical Marijuana Initiative to Pass in the U.S.A.” 8 April 2011. Read More