by Eric M. Gudz
In the 6th hour of an already contentious evening of civics in the City of Davis Community Chambers, The City Council voted 4-0 (R. Swanson not present for vote) on Tuesday, November 1st to enact two urgency moratoriums, defining new regulations for marijuana in the city (or the more appropriate term “cannabis”, which is slowly entering our legal lexicons once more).
The first ordinance that passed focused on regulating “commercial marijuana uses”, which the city defines as any aspect of commercial activity that relates to medical and non-medical marijuana. As the laws stood prior to the urgency moratorium, the only aspects of cannabis that were explicitly regulated within the city were cultivation and brick-and-mortar dispensaries. The city initiated a moratorium on physical dispensaries back in 2004, and just this January they set regulations for personal indoor medical cannabis cultivation while banning outdoor and commercial medical cannabis cultivation (due to the passage of the MCRSA at the state level). While both topics are expected to be revisited and reconsidered in the coming months by the council, they were not the focus for the urgency ordinances in consideration.
This first urgency ordinance placed into effect a moratorium on all “commercial marijuana uses” for both medical and non-medical marijuana, for an initial period of 45 days, that were not already explicitly defined within the city regulations (with the possibility of extension for another 90 days if approved by council). As the staff explained in those early morning hours of the meeting, this moratorium would allow the city time to gather community input, conclude research efforts, and present sensible regulations for the council’s consideration, beginning first with medical cannabis policy.
At the request of the council and the medical cannabis patient community here in Davis, the staff placed explicit declarations in this urgency ordinance that protects and prioritizes the rights of this patient community as defined by state law in Prop 215 and Senate Bill 420 (which are still active until they sunset in 2018 by new state law). Specifically, exemptions to this ban include the existing patient collectives and cooperatives that are currently serving the needs of the patient community via delivery within the city limits, which operate in lieu of any physical dispensary establishments.
As for the second urgency ordinance, which dealt with the explicit inclusion of cannabis smoking within the current city smoking ordinances, the council raised concerns over the effects of the ordinance’s proposed language on the rights of medical patients.
Specifically, the language would have added all public sidewalks and public/private parking lots to the list of prohibitive locations within the city, which would have had the danger of targeting vulnerable communities (such as patients who were not allowed to consume their medicine because of landlord requests or those without homes).
The council expressed interest in keeping the local smoking laws for cannabis on par with tobacco, whereby a series of smoking regulations went into effect last year. Councilmember Will Arnold advocated for these increased cannabis smoking restrictions to only apply to non-medical, adult use and not medical use cannabis, expressing concern for the rights of medical cannabis patients and ensured that their perspectives are not lost in the policy discussions.
With an amended version that defined the additional restrictions in terms of non-medical use only, the second urgency ordinance passed with the required 4-0 vote, ending the evening’s deliberations just shortly before 1:00 AM.
While these urgency moratoriums did place temporary bans on the immediate development of cannabis businesses seeking to establish themselves in the city (putting the brakes on out-of-town speculation), it also strengthened the city’s commitment to our own medical cannabis patient community in town, who have been ready to begin honest, productive conversations with our public officials for some time.
These decisions come just days before Californians will decide the fate of non-medical, adult-use legalization via Prop 64, which has a comfortable 57% polling in the YES camp. While it’s understandable to be excited about the social justice advancements and the possibility of community development funding via tax revenue with the nonmedical, adult-use market, the council made it clear that the rights of our medical cannabis patient community will be centerstage in future policy considerations.
—
Eric is the Co-Founder and Chief Operating Officer of Integrate Cal, a Benefit Corporation focused on blending community development with local planning to guide emerging cannabis businesses in Northern California, and the Vice Chair of the National Board of Directors for Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a global non-profit working to end the injustices caused by the war on drugs through education and harm reduction. Eric holds a Master’s of Science in Transportation, Technology, and Policy from the University of California at Davis, and he holds a Bachelor’s of Science in Conservation Biology from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
“Councilmember Will Arnold advocated for these increased cannabis smoking restrictions to only apply to non-medical, adult use” So legal to smoke weed on sidewalks for those under 18/21? Is Will Arnold a stoner? So if one of our drifters is smoking next to Peets and I call the cops, the cops will ask for his medical marijuana card? Then he says “I left it in my other shopping cart”, then what happens according Stoner Will?
My suggestion is that homeless stoners get to use the Council Chamber as a smoking spot. It is our of the rain so will facilitate smoking during the winter and they can provide matches for the ignition challenged.
Exactly, everyone knows how easy it is to get medical mj cards.
I’d just ask Tia, not only would I get a MJ card she might give me a UBI to keep me in supplies.
And the problem there is the federal government and the medical profession fought California’s law rather than embraced it and so instead of having medical marijuana tightly regulated, they allowed it to be a quasi-black market operation
BP and quielo
Ease of acquisition does not equate to lack of need. There are limited, but real medical indications for the use of cannabis. The appellation of “stoner” to everyone who gets relief from cannabis but not from other medications would be the equivalent of me denying a post operative patient a narcotic medication because I felt that everyone who uses opiates is an addict. While this attitude may be smugly satisfying, it does nothing to strengthen your argument.
It’s not hard to get a doctor to sign off on it:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/california-medical-marijuana-pot-card
Go to Google, there’s a ton of stories just like this.
“It’s not hard to get a doctor to sign off on it” Go to Venice Beach on a Monday. You can get the special, an MJ card and a Handicapped parking placard.
Downtown Davis is going to smell very “ripe”.
I wonder how it’s going to effect the downtown businesses.
Why would Davis be different from other places? WHy don’t you think they’ll restrict usage like they do cigarettes and alcohol?
People can smoke cigarettes downtown with some restrictions. Now we’ll have pot smoking enclaves where groups will sit around getting high.
We have ordinances that prevent people from drinking in public, not seeing this as a problem
Do we have ordinances that are going to stop card carrying mj smokers from getting high in public like we do alcohol?
This appears to give anyone with a MJ card the right to smoke in any public space.
“WHy don’t you think they’ll restrict usage like they do cigarettes and alcohol?”
“The council expressed interest in keeping the local smoking laws for cannabis on par with tobacco, whereby a series of smoking regulations went into effect last year. Councilmember Will Arnold advocated for these increased cannabis smoking restrictions to only apply to non-medical, adult use and not medical use cannabis, expressing concern for the rights of medical cannabis patients and ensured that their perspectives are not lost in the policy discussions.”
Odd, since there are non-smoking options for ingesting cannabis for medical purposes (or otherwise). Nobody ‘needs’ to smoke marijuana in public, and the public certainly doesn’t need to be exposed to the smoke.
If you guys had watched the meeting or read the staff report, you would know that this moratorium does not “allow” anything new that wasn’t allowed before. California state law allows, and has allowed for many years, medical cannabis patients to smoke anywhere smoking is allowed. Davis already has a very restrictive smoking ordinance that explicitly includes cannabis. This moratorium adds further restrictions beyond our existing smoking ordinance for recreational adult cannabis users, but does not add further restrictions to medical cannabis patients. So the status quo on where medical patients can smoke cannabis remains as it has been for many years. There’s nothing “new” being “allowed”.
” Do we have ordinances that are going to stop card carrying mj smokers from getting high in public like we do alcohol? ”
“This appears to give anyone with a MJ card the right to smoke in any public space.”
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7qRfjLB66a0/UZExVfTz2PI/AAAAAAAALxM/5EK2sQCDgHo/w1200-h630-p-nu/ndt-shaking-head.gif
There are plenty of laws, ordinances and covenants preventing medical marijuana users from smoking in public.
“Odd, since there are non-smoking options for ingesting cannabis”
There are, but some users are using the drug to prevent nausea and stimulate appetite, others need a rapid delivery for seizure control. “Vaping” is a good alternative for them, where available. This is another one of those non-issues, for those with a decent sense of propriety.
Oh High Biddlin, Can you explain to the lowly quielo that of which you speak and why the council is passing an ordinance to ban public toking if it is so highly regulated currently?
“There are plenty of laws, ordinances and covenants preventing medical marijuana users from smoking in public.”
You can’t talk to Biddlin like that. He’s an expert on everything Davis even though he lives in Sacramento.
“He’s an expert on everything” I understand that and have chosen to worship at the temple of Biddlin. I am especially interested in covenants that bar toking and whether it is a deed restriction or a deal with God.
I opine, that cannabis “vaping”, be treated the same as nicotine “vaping”… no more, no less…
So many colorful comments here; looking forward to even more as we help guide new developments in the city towards more compassionate policy.
Hi Eric,
“as we help guide new developments in the city towards more compassionate policy.”
You have won my award for my first Vanguard induced smile of the day. “Compassionate policy” in the city of Davis is likely to earn you some derision on this site. You may even join the company of those of us branded ( and proudly) as “do gooders and/or “bleeding heart liberals”. Keep writing, it can get lonely out here sometimes.
I won’t be derisive about it, but I do wish to know what it means. I am finding these essays a little opaque as to what is actually being advocated. Cannabis retail stores?
Hi Don,
Fair point! Given the state of the policy landscape around cannabis, the granularity of what this means for the communities of Davis specifically has yet to be fully defined. These conversations are just beginning, and everyone within our city now has the time needed to define what that means for Davis before undue influence from outside interests arrive. Looking forward to writing more as our elected officials continue to advance the conversation.
Hi Tia,
Thank you kindly for your support. I will indeed continue to voyage on in this exciting policy landscape, and I look forward to earning my community keep.
SB420 bars marijuana smoking in no smoking zones, within 1000 feet of a school or youth center except in private residences; on school buses, in a motor vehicle that is being operated, or while operating a boat. Any local ordinance banning smoking applies.
” and why the council is passing an ordinance to ban public toking if it is so highly regulated currently?”
You’d have to ask them.
“He’s an expert on everything”
I don’t claim to be an expert at anything but guitars and lumber, but I can read simple laws.
Amen… je d’accord…
Cannabis sure looks like a “tweener”… “smoke” can be an issue, and “impairment” could well be… if the use of nicotine, cannabis, alcohol does not affect public safety/welfare (of non-users), am thinking no harm-no foul… arguments about legalization of cannabis could well be a tempest in a tea”pot”…
Yet, society needs to protect itself and users against “abuse”, and educate folk about medical consequences… cannabis should be taxed at the same rate as nicotine, and/or alcohol, for the ‘education’ part, but that doesn’t mean schools should get their BS %-age as some are demanding… some would have any tax go to schools…
The article and discussion misses the point Councilman Arnold raised and the City Attorney could not answer. Under the existing ordinance a landlord could prohibit marijuana smoking in a rented space and the ordinance would prohibit it in all public spaces. Arnold asked if a person can’t use it in a rented home and can’t use it anywhere outside that home where in the city can they use it?
There was no answer from staff.
Arnold also asked that the city staff engage in a public planning process on how to address marijuana in the city. It wasn’t so much that he wanted pot smoking allowed anywhere and everywhere it was more that he wanted a civic discussion and transparent process in formulation of policy that meets the needs of the community in the post Cannabis prohibition era.