HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/07/12 Item 25CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
~~~ CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
July 12, 2011 Item 25
ITEM TITLE: PRESENTATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA
DISPENSARIES AND RELATED POLICIES AND CITY COUNCIL
DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING NEXT STEPS
SUBMITTED BY: CITY A
CHIEF OF
ASSISTANT C~~1'VAGER, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES ~
REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER.. ST
1~ 4/STHS VOTE: YES ^ NO
SUMMARY
With voter approval of Proposition 215 in 1996, the possession, distribution and use of marijuana
for medicinal purposes was decriminalized in California under state law. State legislation
adopted in 2004, and Attorney General Guidelines promulgated in 2008 clarified-but only
somewhat-the manner in which this proposition might be implemented at the local level.
Within this challenging legal framework, particularly over the last 5 years, many different types
of medical marijuana distribution businesses have opened and begun operations, particularly in
larger urban areas. Cities and counties have reacted to the reality and prospect of these new
businesses in a number of ways, ranging from outright prohibitions (an action taken in
approximately 126 jurisdictions to date) to proposals for actual government participation in the
medical marijuana trade (as in Oakland and Isleton, although neither city ultimately took such an
action). In the middle of this spectrum, many jurisdictions have chosen to impose moratoria on
medical marijuana operations for purposes of studying the issue further, allowing for the
emergence of greater clarity on the available range of legal options, and/or allowing for the
development of regulatory "best practices." Almost every type of local action or response in this
area has met with strong objections and/or legal challenge in one form or another, presented by
one side or the other.
The first official City of Chula Vista action regarding medical marijuana was taken on July 21,
2009 with the adoption of a 45-day moratorium on medical marijuana "dispensaries" and related
operations. This moratorium was extended on September 1, 2009, and again on June 22, 2010.
During this two year time period the City Attorney's office monitored legal developments and
collected and analyzed other jurisdiction's attempts at regulation. The Police Department
`~`~~ ~
7/12/11, Item J~
Page 2 of 10
monitored and gathered information regazding observed and potential crime and disorder
impacts. The Development Services Department monitored and gathered information regarding
state and local laws regazding zoning and neighborhood impacts. Staff has engaged and
exchanged information with multiple other jurisdictions confronting these same issues.
Information provided by medical mazijuana advocacy groups has also been collected and
considered.
During this time period the legal challenges surrounding medical marijuana did not subside, and
regulatory "best practices" did not develop to the extent staff had hoped. With the expiration of
the City's moratorium approaching, the City Attorney's office engaged the City's Public Safety
Subcommittee in order to present an update on medical marijuana issues and options, and to take
public input. The Committee promptly took up the issue by agendizing the item for
consideration at two noticed public forums. The first occurred on May 18~', the second on June
15a'. Both public forums were well attended with substantial input provided by both local
residents and outside interests on all sides of the issue. After considering staffls presentations,
public input, and a recommendation from the City Manager, the Committee adopted a
recommendation that the City (1) prohibit storefront, commercial retail operations, (2) continue
to allow true "patientlcazegiver" distribution as defined by state code, (3) continue to allow
delivery service, (4) develop appropriate regulations for (2) and (3), and (5) further study and
consider medical marijuana "collectives" that comply with the Attorney General's guidelines.
This item presents the Committee's recommendation and asks for City Council direction on next
steps.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This proposed activity has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and it has been determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined
under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a physical
change in the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the activity is not subject to the CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Public Safety Subcommittee recommends that the City Council direct staff to take all
necessary steps to implement the following with respect to the possession, distribution and use of
medical marijuana within the City of Chula Vista:
1. Do not permit MMJ "dispensazies."
(defined as storefront, commercial retail operations)
2. Do continue to allow conventional patient/cazegiver MMJ distribution
(defined as a health clinic, a health caze facility, a residential care facility for
persons with chronic, life-threatening illnesses, a licensed residential care facility
for the elderly, and/or a residential hospice or a home health agency as authorized
by Health & Safety Code Section 11362.7(d)(1),.)
25-2
7/12/11, Item 2~
Page 3 of 10
3 Do continue to allow MMJ delivery service.
4. Develop appropriate regulations for Items 2 and 3.
5. Further consider MMJ "collectives" that operate in accordance with the 2008
Attorney General's Guidelines by conducting further public outreach and study to
evaluate the extent of community need, impact on neighborhoods and whether or
not there exists an acceptable model of operation with matching, legally
defensible regulations.
This recommendation is substantially similar to the City Manager's recommendation, with the
exception that the City Manager does not endorse recommendation No. 5.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
This item is not site-specific therefore there are no conflicts based on the 500-foot proximity of
councilmember property holdings.
DISCUSSION
A. LeEal Framework
The legal framework in California regarding the distribution of medical marijuana is complex
and continues to evolve. Although Proposition 215 was passed back in 1996, since that time no
definitive guidance has been provided, by either the courts or the state, regarding the parameters
within which medical marijuana can be grown and distributed. This environment has been
frustrating for regulators and operators alike. What follows is a summary of the governing laws
and continuing legal issues in this area. The last section contains the City Attorney's legal
conclusions and advice.
1. Proposition 215 and its Implementine Statutes and Guidelines
In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215, also known as the "Compassionate
Use Act or 1996." Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5. Proposition 215 provides seriously ill
Californians the ability to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes when such use is
recommended by a physician without risk of criminal prosecution. The recommendation can be
oral or written. Proposition 215 further provides that both the patient and the patient's "primary
caregiver" are exempt from prosecution for violating state laws against the possession and
cultivation of marijuana. "Primary caregiver" is defined as the individual designated by the
patient who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that
person. Id.
Effective January 1, 2004, the Legislature enacted the "Article 2.5 Medical Marijuana
Program" [Medical Marijuana Program] also commonly referred to as "SB 420" (Senate Bill
420). Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 11362.7-11362.83. The legislation expanded the state law
exemptions for qualified patients and primary caregivers to include exemptions from arrest and
prosecution for possession for sale; transportation, distribution, and importation; maintaining a
place for unlawfully selling, distributing, or using; knowingly making available a place for
2`~ - 3
7/12/11, Item 25
Page 4 of 10
unlawful manufacturing, storage, and distribution; and using such a place. The legislation also
allows marijuana to be collectively or cooperatively cultivated for medical purposes by qualified
patients and primary caregivers. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.775. Cultivating or
distributing marijuana for profit is expressly disallowed. Cal. Health & Safety Code §
11362.765(a). Primary caregivers may recover reasonable compensation for services and for out-
of-pocket expenses. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.765(c).
State law does not exempt the smoking of medical marijuana in places where smoking is
otherwise prohibited, nor does it exempt smoking on a school bus, in a motor vehicle that is
being operated, or within 1,000 feet of a school, recreation center, or youth center, unless the
medical use occurs within a residence. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.79. State law does not
require workplaces or jails to allow medical marijuana use. Cal. Health & Safety Code §
11367.785.
The Medical Marijuana Program also established a voluntary identification card system
to he maintained by the State Department of Health Services. Cal. Health & Safety Code §
11362.71. The intent of the Medical Marijuana Program is, in part, to insure a uniform, statewide
identification program for patients and primary caregivers. As part of the Medical Mazijuana
Program, each county health department, or the county's designee, provides applications,
receives and processes completed applications, and issues identification cards. Cal. Health &
Safety Code §§ 11362.71(b); 11362.72-11362.74. Participation is voluntary and possession of an
identification card is not required to qualify for the protections of Proposition 215 and the
Medical Marijuana Program. The County continues to issue identification cards.
On February 19, 2010, the California Legislature approved AB 2650. AB 2650, restricts
the location of a cooperative, collective or dispensary from being located within 600 feet of a
school. AB2650 has been the only alteration to the Health & Safety Code medical mazijuana
provisions since 2004. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.768.
2. Case Law
California case law in this area has been slow to develop. However, since the enactment
of the City's moratorium and its subsequent expiration, there have been important rulings which
have shed some light on the legal status of dispensaries vis-a-vis the regulatory land use power of
municipalities. Because each city has employed a different approach to regulating and/or
prohibiting medical marijuana establishments case law results differ depending on the specific
ordinances and underlying facts.
City of Corona v. Naulls 166 Cal. App. 4a' 418 (2008). The California Appellate Court upheld a
trial court's injunction preventing the operation of a medical marijuana dispensary because it did
not comply with the City's zoning ordinance.
City of Claremont v. Kruse, 177 Cal. Ano. 4`~' 1153 (2009). This case confirmed that the
Compassionate Use Act and Medical Marijuana Program do not preempt a city's enactment or
enforcement of land use, zoning or business license laws as they apply to medical marijuana
dispensazies. Based on the Court of Appeal's thorough analysis of state preemption law, cities
retain their police power to regulate and, if necessary, restrict the operation of dispensazies.
25-'f
7/12/11, Item r'u ~
Page 5 of 10
Qualified Patients Association v City ofAnaheim 187 Cal. App. 4`h 861 (2011). Plaintiffs sued
the City of Anaheim on the City's explicit ban on medical marijuana dispensaries. Trial court
upheld ban but ruled that federal law pre-empted state law. This case was expected to be the
Appellate Court's first ruling on a municipal ban but the Appellate Court reversed trial court's
ruling and order a retrial. Case re-tried this Spring, judgment is pending.
Los Angeles County v Hill 192 Cal. App. 4th 861 (2011). Upholds Los Angeles County's
regulations as not being pre-empted by the Compassionate Use Act "[t]he statute [CUA] does not
confer on qualified patients and their caregivers the unfettered right to cultivate or dispense
marijuana anywhere they choose."
3. Pending State Legislation
There have been numerous efforts to further enhance and/or restrict medical marijuana
regulations in the State Legislature since passage of the Compassionate Use Act. The current
pending initiatives are:
Senate Bill (SB) 847 would prevent medical marijuana entities (dispensaries, collectives,
cooperatives, etc.) from being located 600 feet from a residential zone or residential use. On
June 29, 2011, SB 847 passed the State Assembly Committee on Local Government and was
referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Passage appears likely.
Assembly Bill (AB) 1300 seeks to clarify that local governments can enforce their land
use and municipal codes against dispensaries in a criminal manner. The Bill passed the
Assembly and is now pending in front of the Senate.
4. Federal Policy On Medical Marijuana
Marijuana in ~ form, medical or otherwise, still remains an illegal substance under the
federal Controlled Substances Act. This significantly complicates providing legal advice on this
issue and presents obstacles to comprehensive regulation on a local level.
Initially, the Obama Administration indicated a willingness to ease federal drug
enforcement efforts vis-a-vis patients and caregivers immunized from prosecution under state
law in Deputy Attorney General David Ogden's October 29, 2009 Memorandum.
However, more recently, U.S. Attorneys have been issuing warning letters to state and
local officials warning them that permitting marijuana distribution and growing facilities under
state medical marijuana initiatives runs counter to federal law and could subject the entities and
individuals to prosecution. Laura Duffy, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California,
issued a similar warning via email on May 12, 2011.
Because of the resulting confusion between federal enforcement efforts and state medical
marijuana initiatives, the U.S. Department of Justice further qualified its position by stating "The
Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement
action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. Persons
2~-5
7/12/11, Item ~~ £~'
Page 6 of 10
who aze in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who
knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless
of state law." June 29, 2011 "Memorandum for United States Attorneys" by James Cole, Deputy
Attorney General.
While there have not been any cases where federal prosecutors have charged legislators
with violating the Controlled Substances Act for implementing state medical marijuana
initiatives the risk, however, does exist and should be considered before proceeding.
5. City Attorney's Comments/Advice
The City Attorney's Office has been studying the evolving legal, regulatory and business
operations framework for medical marijuana distribution over the past 2 years. Although the
legal landscape remains complicated, the City Attorney's office offers the following advice and
conclusions:
1. The City has no legal obligation to permit the commercial distribution of
medical marijuana within City limits.
The state laws regarding medical marijuana "decriminalize" the cultivation,
distribution, possession and use of medical marijuana in limited circumstances. They do not,
however, require local jurisdictions to "permit" commercial distribution operations. The City
reserves the right, under its fundamental "police powers" authority, to prohibit such operations in
order to preserve the "health, safety and welfaze" of the community. Approximately 126 cities
within the state have already taken action to prohibit medical marijuana dispensazies. These
include the San Diego County cities of Santee, San Marcos, Escondido, and Imperial Beach.
The right of a city to prohibit this activity is the consensus view of city attorneys within the
region; however, we are still awaiting a definitive appellate court case to confirm this authority.
2. Existing state law does not contemplate or approve of medical marijuana
"dispensaries."
The concept of a commercial storefront medical marijuana distribution business,
commonly referred to as a "dispensary," is not created by state law; rather, it is a business model
developed by individuals within the medical marijuana community. The vast majority of such
businesses do not operate within the pazameters of the 2008 Attorney General Guidelines
regazding "cooperatives" and "collectives". A matrix that compares the key AG guidelines for
cooperatives and collectives with typical "dispensary" operations is attached to this report as
Attachment B. Current references to "dispensaries" in state law are limited to
acknowledgements of their existence and do not constitute endorsements or confirmations of
their legality under state law.
2'~ -6
7/12/11, Item ~~'-~
Page 7 of 10
3. Although federal law implications remain unsettled, the City Council could
develop regulations to allow some form of "cooperative" or "collective" for the distribution
of medical marijuana.
Because of the nature of medical marijuana operations, and the practical and legal limits
on what you can regulate, it will be difficult to draft, and effectively enforce regulations that
distinguish between legal and illegal operations and that mitigate all likely negative impacts.
Moreover, based on the experiences in other jurisdictions, regulation enforcement efforts would
likely present a substantial drain on City Attorney, Code Enforcement and Police resources.
California cities that have adopted regulatory provisions are now re-thinking their regulations as
a result of the proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries and the ineffectiveness or legal
vulnerability of their regulations. The City of Los Angeles, for example, was forced to revise its
regulations and is now attempting to force the closure of 439 dispensaries.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the City Council ultimately determines to proceed with
medical marijuana dispensary regulations, or the exploration of suitable regulations for true
"collectives" or "cooperatives," the City Attorney's Office will work diligently with other City
departments to develop the best possible regulatory system.
B. Police Issues
The Police Department has been monitoring public safety issues related to operating
dispensaries in other jurisdictions. The Police Department possesses serious concerns that public
safety could be negatively affected should any form of a dispensary be permitted. The formative
study in this area, the 44-page 2009 California Police Chiefs Association's White Paper on
Marijuana Dispensaries, studied and analyzed medical marijuana dispensaries and concluded
there were adverse public safety secondary effects relating to these businesses. The Police
Department has contacted other agencies that have also reported similar issues surrounding their
dispensazies.
The Police Department, however, is sensitive to and acknowledges medical marijuana
patient and caregiver rights in its routine policing of the community. The Police Department has
enacted a training bulletin, with the assistance of the District Attorney, that facilitates the policies
and codes underlying the decriminalization of medical mazijuana in California.
The Police Department also has concerns that permitting dispensaries could negatively
impact service to the community due to low staffing levels. There are already 650 police-
regulated businesses which require monitoring, permitting and background checks. Staffing
levels are at an all-time low and stand to be significantly impacted should storefront dispensaries
be permitted. Calls for service aze anticipated to rise based on complaints from neighbors,
potential secondary street sales and robberies. Also, since Chula Vista is a border city, there are
unique policing concerns relating to cross-border narcotics trafficking which could be
complicated by permitting dispensaries.
Put simply, the Police Department is not staffed to regulate and monitor dispensaries nor
is it staffed to address the potential negative secondary effects that accompany these businesses.
25 ~7
7/12/11, Item
Page 8 of 10
C. Planning and Zoning
Development Services staff has compiled and analyzed medical marijuana ordinances
from jurisdictions throughout California. These ordinances typically require that dispensazies be
located in commercial/industrial zones and maintain a minimum distance from sensitive uses
such as schools, pazks, daycaze facilities, and libraries. This distance is typically between 600
and 1,000 feet. Many ordinances also require that dispensaries not be located within a similar
distance to residential uses and other dispensaries. State law requires that dispensazies not be
located within 600 feet of a school.
Staff has analyzed the effect of the sepazation requirement from sensitive uses upon the
availability of sites for dispensaries within Chula Vista. Because Chula Vista has residential uses
located throughout the City, very few areas would be available for dispensaries that would meet
a 600 to 1,000 foot separation requirement from residential uses. Areas that would be available
are located within certain industrial azeas, which the Police Department has determined to have a
higher than average crime rate. If there were a sepazation requirement from sensitive uses other
than residential, then commercial areas along Broadway and Third Avenue, as well as
commercial azeas in Eastern Chula Vista would be available for dispensazies. However, this
issue could be made moot by pending state legislation (described above) that would prohibit
dispensaries from being located 600 feet from residential zones or uses.
D. Citv Manager's Recommendation
In light of research that was presented by staff at the Public Safety Subcommittee hearings that
suggests medical mazijuana dispensaries will present a material drain on City resources, pose
substantial risks for crime and disorder, and that reasonable alternatives exist for obtaining
medical marijuana, the City Manager recommended (and still recommends) as follows:
1. Do not permit medical marijuana dispensaries;
2. Do continue to allow conventional patient/cazegiver medical marijuana distribution;
3. Do continue to allow medical marijuana delivery service;
4. Staff will work to develop appropriate regulations for Items 2 and 3; and
5. If Council further considers medical marijuana dispensaries, further public outreach and
study would be necessary to evaluate the extent of community need, impact on
neighborhoods and whether or not there exists an acceptable model of operation with
matching, legally defensible regulations.
E. Public Safety Subcommittee Hearings and Recommendation
The Public Safety Subcommittee held two public heazin~s on the issue of medical
mazijuana; the first was held on May 18~'; the second on June 15` . Both were well attended.
Each hearing began with extensive presentations from legal, police and planning staff. Staff
presentations were followed by extensive public testimony and input from both residents and
outside interests. Most speakers made statements in support of some form of City-approval
process for medical marijuana distribution operations. Others spoke against. Ultimately, many
sides and perspectives on the issue of medical mazijuana were presented.
25- g
7/12/11, Item ~._- -
Page 9 of 10
Those in favor spoke about the benefits of medical marijuana and the importance of
convenient local access, especially for the seriously ill. Some objected to staff presentations as
inaccurate or incomplete and suggested that the identified crime risks were either exaggerated or
no worse than other types of more common business operations. Medical marijuana industry
representatives (e.g., representatives from the organization Americans for Safe Access), talked
about (and provided) materials and sample regulations that were supportive of storefront type
distribution mechanisms. Some speakers also suggested that the availability of open and "legal"
access would reduce the amount of illegal drug activity. Others talked about the potential for the
City to tax this type of business and raise substantial revenue. The idea that "delivery service"
presented a reasonable alternative was challenged as more costly to patients, and an unfair "not
in my backyard" approach.
Those opposed to medical marijuana businesses expressed concerns about the negative
impacts on public safety, neighborhoods and kids, with the suggestion that easier access to
medical marijuana might lead to increased recreational use. Others pointed out that state law
only decriminalized medical marijuana, it did not "legalize it" and that state law did not
contemplate the kinds of storefront operations now common in many cities. The ability of the
City to generate revenue was questioned, with the suggestion that the cost of regulations would
exceed revenues.
The City Manager's recommendation (described above) was presented to the Committee
as part of staff's presentation at the June 15~' hearing. The Committee considered this
recommendation, public testimony, and their own personal considerations in developing a formal
committee recommendation for the City Council. In their deliberations both Committee
members acknowledged and expressed sensitivity to the legitimate medical marijuana user
population. Both also expressed concerns about the proliferation of medical marijuana
"dispensaries" that appeared to market to recreational users. Both expressed support for
continuing existing (if not "permitted") forms of access (i.e., traditional patient caregiver
settings, and delivery services based outside the City), but with appropriate regulations. They
also expressed an interest in exploring whether or not a storefront type operation that complied
with the AG guidelines could be identified and regulated. One particular operation in the City of
San Diego that both members had toured with a move "pharmacy-like" atmosphere was
identified as the kind of place that might be acceptable subject to further review and analysis.
F. Next Steus
If City Council accepts the Public Safety Subcommitee recommendation to prohibit the
operation of medical marijuana dispensaries (Recommendation No. 1), the City Attorney will
prepare the appropriate ordinance(s) to implement same. Any required zoning ordinance would
first be presented to the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing. The Planning
Commission's next scheduled meeting is on July 27th. Once acted upon by the Planning
Commission, the formal ordinance, with any Planning Commission's recommendation thereon,
would be presented to the City Council for final consideration. This could happen as early as
August 9th.
25-~'
7/12/11, Item :-'`~~
Page 10 of 10
Appropriate regulations for traditional "patienUcaregiver" operations identified in the
Health and Safety Code, and delivery services (Recommendations Nos. 2, 3 and 4) would be
developed over the next 6 to 9 months and also presented for City Council consideration.
Further consideration of MMJ "collectives" (Recommendation No. 5) could occur in a
number of ways. The Public Safety Subcommittee itself could continue to address the issue that
operate in accordance with the 2008 Attorney General's Guidelines by conducting further public
outreach and study to evaluate the extent of community need, impact on neighborhoods and
whether or not there exists an acceptable model of operation with matching, legally defensible
regulations. As an alternative, a separate ad hoc committee could be formed. If the committee
were comprised of less than a quorum of the City Council, with no outside members, this
committee could meet privately and publicly under applicable laws. Finally, staff could be
directed to implement the process on its own. The procedures and focus of any of these study
groups could be established by the City Council, or left to the assigned group itself. Staff
estimates 6 to 9 months would be needed to complete this process.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
The primary "fiscal impact" of the work done to date on this matter has been the consumption of
a substantial amount of staff time, particularly in the City Attorney's office. Any direction to
further study regulations for "collectives" would consume substantial additional staff resources
in the City Attorney's office, Police Department and Development Services. Staff demands
would be increased again by any conclusion that formal regulations should be developed,
implemented and enforced. Any fee structure or tax imposed on medical marijuana operations
may require a fee study performed by an outside consultant. The cost for this work is not known
at this time.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
Unlrnown
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A -Timeline of Medical Marijuana Legal Enactments and City Actions to Date
Attachment B -Matrix Comparing Attorney General Guidelines and Common Operations of
Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
Attachment C -Resolution Implementing Public Safety Subcommittee Recommendation
`ZS- ~ ~
ATTACHMENT A
Brief Timeline of Relevant Laws:
1970 -Congress passed Controlled Substances Act (CSA) making marijuana a Schedule
1 drug (no accepted medical use).
1996 -Prop. 215 (Compassionate Use Act - CUA) approved by majority of CA voters.
2004 - CA Legislature enacts Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA) - SB 420.
2008 -Jerry Brown, Att. General of CA, Issues "Guidelines for the Security and Non-
Diversion of Marijuana Grown For Medical Use."
History of Chula Vista Moratorium:
July 21, 2009: The Council adopted an interim urgency ordinance by a vote of 4-
0 establishing an interim urgency ordinance placing a 45-day moratorium on the
legal establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries in Chula
Vista necessary to protect the public safety, health and welfare of Chula Vista and
because medical marijuana dispensaries conflicted with the General Plan.
September 1, 2009: The interim urgency ordinance was extended for 10 months
and 15 days which is the first standard extension authorized by Government Code
65858.
• June 22, 2010: Council passes second extension for 12 months.
^ Moratorium expired June 21, 2011.
Public Safety Subcommittee Meetings on MMJ:
May 18, 2011: PSS takes up discussion of MMJ and licensing dispensaries.
Public testimony obtained, presentation by staff.
June 16, 2011: PSS continues discussion of MMJ and licensing dispensaries.
Agrees to support City Manager's recommendation.
2S- I I
ATTACHMENT B
AG's Guidelines MMJ Dispensaries In Practice
Non-Profit registration required. Selling medical marijuana in commercial
retail setting financially benefits
owners/operators of cooperative.
"...democratically controlled and are not Storefront dispensazy members who walk
organized to make a profit for themselves.. in generally do not have a say on how the
" cooperative is operated.
"The earnings and savings of the business Storefront dispensaries do not distribute
must be used for the general welfare of its cash to the members who are not operators
members or equally distributed to members or owners.
in form of cash, property, credits or
services." Prices are set and not based on the
contributions and costs of its members.
Closed-Network: "...the cycle should be Any qualified patient can walk into a
a closed-network of mazijuana cultivation storefront dispensary, become a member by
and consumption with no purchases or filling out forms and purchase medical
sales to or from non-members." marijuana.
"Collectives Should Acquire, Possess, and Dispensaries generally do not supply
Distribute Only Lawfully Cultivated governing authorities with information on
Marijuana." where or how the medical marijuana is
grown.
Primary caregiver must have "...assumed Primary caregiver is designated as the store
responsibility for the housing, health and owner and patient is anyone who fills out
safety" of the patient. basic registration forms.
"Someone who merely maintains a source
of marijuana does not automatically
become the `party who has assumed..."'
2s-12
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO IMPLEMENT
THE PUBLIC SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING MEDICAL
MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AND RELATED POLICIES
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has been monitoring and studying medical
marijuana related issues for the past two years; and
WHEREAS, the Public Safety Subcommittee took up the this issue and held hearings to
receive City staff and public input on May 18`h and June 15a', 2011; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of staff input, the City Manager's recommendation,
input from the public, and their own deliberations, the Public Safety Subcommittee developed
and presented to City Council a recommendation on how to proceed regarding medical
marijuana dispensaries and related policies; and
WHEREAS, at the July 12`h City Council meeting, the City Council considered such
recommendation, and received and considered further staff and public input, including staff's
request for further direction.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista directs City Staff to:
1. Prepare and process for final City Council consideration an ordinance (or ordinances) to
accomplish the following:
a. prohibit medical marijuana "dispensaries" (defined as storefront, commercial
retail operations) and similar operations;
b. Continue to allow conventional patient/caregiver medical marijuana distribution
(defined as a health clinic, a health care facility, a residential care facility for
persons with chronic, life-threatening illnesses, a licensed residential care facility
for the elderly, and/or a residential hospice or a home health agency as authorized
by Health & Safety Code Section 11362.7(d)(1));
c. Continue to allow medical marijuana delivery service;
2. Work to develop appropriate regulations for Items l.b and c; and
3. In accordance with a process and timeline established by City Council, further consider
MMJ "collectives" that operate in accordance with the 2008 Attorney General's
Guidelines by conducting further public outreach and study to evaluate the extent of
25-13
Resolution No. 2011-
Page 2
community need, impact on neighborhoods and whether or not there exists an acceptable
model of operation with matching, legally defensible regulations.
Presented by:
Chance C. Hawkins
Deputy City Attorney
Approved as to form by:
~ ,
~~
en Goo ins
C Att ey v
2~- I'~
C:\Documents and Settings\cherylpV.ocal Settings\]'emporary Internet Files\OLK64teso MN1I rec (2).doc
~~
-~~ ~ S
NATIONAL DRUG
r-len s.
CONTROL STRATEGY
2(~ 11
~v ~
J~~~~`-- I'`~-Qe~c~, tea, c,l,Q,e -~
J h ~~ ya,ca~--
__ ~_
'Ihe Facts About Marijuana
Marijuana
Marijuana use is the highest it has been in 8 years. In 2010, daily marijuana use increased significantly
among all three grades surveyed (8th,10th, and 12th graders) in the MTF study. Daily use for high school
seniors increased from 5.2 percent to 6.1 percent of the respondents as One in 11 people who start mari-
juanause will become addicted-a rate that rises to one in six when use begins during adolescence."~~47
In 2009, marijuana was involved in 376,000 emergency department visits nationwide.48
Making matters worse, confusing messages being conveyed by the entertainment industry, media,
proponents of"medical"marijuana, and political campaigns to legalize all marijuana use perpetuate
the false notion that marijuana use is harmless and aim to establish commercial access to the drug.This
significantly diminishes efforts to keep our young people drug free and hampers the struggle of those
recovering from addiction.
-____,
F+~~r€~ .~. Treads in Fast dear Ilse of Marijuana and Perzeived risk of
C)ccasional Marijuana CJse among 'i 2th Graders, '! 975-201 t?
80
-' Past Year Use _ Perceived Risk
70
60
~ t
'" SO ~
~ `o
c
~~ 0 40
~ 30
V
d 20
'~
O N~ O 1~ O P O N N M N~ O 1~ O D O~ N M N 1~ p p O~ pO p ~ p N p M pN 1 D 1p~ p~ pO. O
~ fV N NNNNNNNNN
~urce: ~ ~ ie . ;ty rr ~ lit~a:~, lt, ~ nrt~ ~~ ~ tre Ftr?a r ~; y roc E ~ ,er zf?+Oi.
C------ _
Marijuana and other illicit drugs are addictive and unsafe especially for use by young people.The science,
though still evolving interms oflong-term consequences, is clear: marijuana use is harmful. Independent
from the so called "gateway effect"-marijuana on its own is associated with addiction, respiratory and
mental illness, poor motor performance, and cognitive impairment, among other negative effects.
21
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Strengthen Efforts to Prevent Drug Use in Our Communities. . 9
The Facts About Marijuana.
21
Chapter 2. Seek Early Intervention Opportunities in Health Care. 27
Chapter 3. IntegrateTreatment for Substance Use Disorders into Mainstream Health Care and Expand
Support for Recovery 37
Chapter 4. Break the Cycle of Drug Use, Crime, Delinquency, and Incarceration . 43
Chapter 5. Disrupt Domestic Drug Trafficking and Production
55
Chapter 6. Strengthen International Partnerships
71
Chapter 7. Improve Information Systems for Analysis, Assessment, and Local Management . 81
Conclusion
87
Director's Closing Remarks
89
Appendix One
91
Appendix Two
95
Endnotes
.101
To the Congress of the United States
Every sector of our society is affected by drug use and the consequences of drug use. Drug use and its
consequences hamper our Nation's ability toout-educate our global competitors and increase gradua-
tion rates. It lessens the ability of our workforce to be fully productive, and it takes the lives of too many
fellow Americans.
My Administration's 2011 National Drug Control5trategycontalns support for smart and cost-effective
programs to reduce drug use and its consequences.There are new prevention initiatives to encourage
young people to make good decisions. There are increasing numbers of evidence-based treatment
programs for those with substance use disorders. There is a focus on smart criminal justice approaches
that use our criminal justice system to break the cycle of drug use and crime by diverting non-violent
offenders into treatment instead of prison. From pre-trial diversion to alternatives to incarceration, to
re-entry efforts that fundamentally change how drug-related crime and substance-abusing offenders
are addressed, these approaches reduce recidivism and help ex-offenders return to their communities.
On our borders and around the world, we highlight our collaboration with international partners to stop
drugs from reaching our shores and prevent proceeds of illicit drug sales from returning to traffickers.
This Strategy also builds on several legislative accomplishments passed with broad, bipartisan support
from Congress over the past year. I was proud to sign two important pieces of legislation since the release
of the Inaugural Strategy,• the Fair Sentencing Act and the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act.
The Fair Sentencing Act dramatically reduced the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and pow-
dercocaine violations. My Administration is committed to the fair and equal application of our Nation's
laws. The Fair Sentencing Act marks the first time in 40 years that Congress has reduced a mandatory
minimum sentence.
Prescription drug abuse is America's fastest-growing drug problem, and one largely fed by an unlikely
source-Americans' medicine cabinets. The passage of the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act
of 2010 will save lives by providing patients with safe, environmentally sound ways to dispose of unused
or expired prescription drugs.
By taking a balanced approach to drug policy, one that emphasizes both public health and public safety,
we can help make our neighborhoods and communities even stronger. Together, we will make a real
difference in addressing the many challenges posed by drug use and its consequences and create a
brighter future for us all.
~°'~-~
Barack Obama
The White House
2011 NATIONr\I, DR[1C: CONTROL STRATI:GF
leading cause of injury death? In addition, l in every 10 cases of HIV diagnosed in 2007 was transmitted
via injection drug use, and drug use itself fosters risky behavior contributing to the spread of infectious
diseases nationwide.3 Furthermore, studies of children in foster care find that two-thirds tothree-quarters
of cases involve parental substance abuse.4 Also, low-achieving high school students are more likely
to use marijuana and other substances than high-achieving students.s Finally, Americans with drug or
alcohol use disorders spend more days in the hospital and require more expensive care than they would
absent such disorders.This contributes to almost $32 billion in medical costs peryearb-a burden that
our communities, employers, and small businesses cannot afford to bear.
Despite significant gains over the past decade, recent survey results have shown troubling increases
in drug use in America. Young adults between the ages of 18 and 25 have the highest rates of current
drug use at nearly 20 percent. Each day, an estimated 4,000 young people between the ages of 12 and
17 use drugs forthe first time.' Additiona{ly, more high school seniors now use marijuana than tobacco,
and non-medical use ofprescription orover-the-counter drugs remains unacceptably high, accounting
for 6 of the top 10 substances used by 12th graders in the year prior to the survey.e
While these results inspire a call to action, they are not unexpected. Data from the last 2 years show
young people's attitudes towards drugs are weakening, particularly toward marijuana and prescription
drugs.9 When youth attitudes weaken, increases in use are never far behind.
The 2011 Strategy continues efforts to coordinate an unprecedented government-wide public health
approach to reduce drug use and its negative consequences in the United States while maintaining
2
[NTRODitC"PION
strong support for law enforcement. Experience shows we can continue to make progress in reducing
drug use by supporting balanced and evidence-based drug control strategies. Data show that, despite
recent increases in drug use, the percentage of Americans using illicit drugs is half the rate it was 30
years ago, cocaine production in Colombia has dropped by almost two-thirds since 2001, and increasing
numbers ofnon-violent offenders are being diverted into treatment instead of jail. Previous national
efforts to reduce smoking, drunk driving, and other public health threats have shown that sustained and
balanced approaches can work to significantly improve public health and safety.The Administration's
National Drug Control5trategyprovides a roadmap tobuild onthese past successes.
Policy Priorities
In addition to the overarching drug policy outlined above, we are focused on three areas where sub-
stantial short-term progress can make a significant difference in people's lives-prescription drug abuse,
drugged driving, and prevention.
Reducing Prescription Drug Abuse (Also discussed in Chapters 1, S, 6, and 7}
Prescription drug abuse is the Nation's fastest-growing drug problem. While prescription drugs have
important benefits when used properly, they are also increasingly abused by teens and young adults.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC},more than 27,000 people died from
drug overdose deaths in 2007.These deaths primarily involve prescription drug pain relievers.The rate of
overdose deaths from such drugs has risen five-fold since 1990 and has never been higher. Prescription
drugs are now involved in more overdose deaths than heroin and cocaine combined.10
Because prescription drugs are legal, they are easily accessible and are most frequently acquired through
friends and family members. Further, some individuals who misuse prescription drugs, particularly
teens, mistakenly believe these substances are safer than illicit drugs because they are prescribed by
healthcare professionals and legally sold by pharmacies.
Although we must carefully balance the need to minimize abuse of pharmaceuticals with the need to
maximize safe and legitimate access to these products, the Administration has made reducing prescrip-
tiondrug abuse a national priority.This Strategy, along with the Administration's recently released plan
(titled, Epidemic: Responding toAmerica's Prescription Drug Abuse Crisis} provides a blueprint for reduc-
ing prescription drug abuse by supporting the expansion of prescription drug monitoring programs,
encouraging community prescription take-back initiatives, recommending disposal methods to remove
unused medications from the home, supporting education for patients and healthcare providers, and
reducing the prevalence of illegal prescribing practices and doctor shopping through enforcement
efforts. The complete plan can be found here:
http://www.whitehoused rugpolicy.gov/prescriptiondrugs/
Addressing Drugged Driving (Also discussed in Chapters 1 and 5}
Similar to the highly successful efforts to prevent drunk driving, drugged driving demands a national
response. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), roughly one in
eight weekend, nighttime drivers tested positive for illicit drugs." In 2009, drivers who were killed in
3
2011 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL, STRA'"i'EGY
motor vehicle crashes (and subsequently tested and had results reported), one in three tested positive
for drugs.'Z One in eight high school seniors self-reported that in the last 2 weeks they drove a car after
using marijuana.13
To help shed light on this threat, the President declared December 2010 National Impaired Driving
Prevention Month and called on all Americans to recommit to preventing the foss of life by practicing
safe driving practices and reminding others to be sober, drug free, and safe on the road. Infollow-up to
the activities called for in this Strategy, drugged driving will be addressed domestically by raising public
awareness in partnership with national non-governmental organizations, local law enforcement, and
courts; providing technical assistance to states considering per se laws; developing an online version of
NHTSA's Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement Program; and improving testing methods
for impaired drivers.
Preventing Drug Use Before it Begins (Also discussed in Chapter 1)
Scientific evidence makes clear that drug prevention is the most cost-effective, common-sense approach
to promoting safe and healthy communities. Youth who refrain from drug use have better academic
performance." Communities enjoy reduced drugged driving and, therefore, safer roads. Employers
experience lower absenteeism, resulting in more productive workplaces.15•'6•" Drug use prevention
efforts also impact HIV transmission rates by decreasing injection drug use, creating safer home environ-
ments by reducing the numberofdrug-endangered children, and revitalizing neighborhoods through
coalition-based efforts.'$•19•20
Americans from every walk of life suffer from drug addiction, especially with the increasing abuse of
prescription drugs. The next generation deserves every opportunity to succeed in life, and effective
prevention gives them much better odds.
Special Populations
While drug addiction respects no geographic, ethnic, economic, or social boundaries, there are some
specific populations with unique challenges and needs in addressing their substance abuse issues.
Throughout this Strategy, the Administration is proposing new policies and practices that will improve
the way the Federal government responds to the special populations described below.
College and University Students
About 40 percent of college students report binge drinking (defined for men as five or more drinks in
a row on at least one occasion in the past 2 weeks and for women as four or more drinks).' Other drug
use, including marijuana and prescription drug abuse, is also ofconcern.One study at a large university
reported that 34 percent of students had used a prescription stimulant medication during times of
academic stress, believing that these drugs increased reading comprehension, cognition, and memory.Z2
Substance use by college students also contributes to numerous academic, social, and health-related
problems. In one nationa(study of 14,000 college students, 29.5 percent reported missing a class because
of alcohol use and almost 22 percent who drank in the year prior reported falling behind in their work.23
In another national study examining the consequences of binge drinking among college students
10 years post-college, binge and frequent drinking was associated with academic attrition, early depar-
turefrom college, and lower earnings in post-college empioyment.za
4
Chapter 1. Strengthen Efforts to Prevent
Drug Use in Our Communities
Drug and alcohol use affects health outcomes, job opportunities, family life, military preparedness,
and academic outcomes. Findings from several national surveys show that teen marijuana use maybe
increasing and that the perceived risk of marijuana use is decreasing. Historically, research demonstrates
that drug use among youth increases when the perceived danger of using drugs decreases.29
Therefore, now more than ever, it is critical to focus resources and efforts on preventing use before it
ever starts. This is not only common sense, but iscost-effective: For every dollar invested in prevention,
up to 10 dollars in treatment for alcohol or other drugs can be saved.30
The consequences of substance use on academic performance are significant and demonstrate why
we must invest in prevention efforts. For example, the CDC found that 9th to 12th graders who received
grades of mostly Ds and Fs were twice as likely to be current alcohol users, five times more likely to be
current marijuana users, and 13 times more likely to be current cocaine users, compared to students
receiving A grades.31 In astudy offirst-year college students who used marijuana five or more times in
the past year, nearly 25 percent were found to meet the diagnostic criteria of abuse or dependence. Of
these students, 24 percent regularly put themselves in physical danger when under the influence, 40
percent reported concentration problems, and 14 percent reported missing class due to their drug use.3z
i='ic~~ar~ >, Itllari~~.r~na ter Alcohol ~~e end Acac~emsic Carades
ir€ high School, 2#308
s 70 Type ofGrade Earned
0
Q ^ Mostly"A"s ^ Mostly"B"s ' 62
~ '~ Mostly"C"s ^ Mostty"D"sP'f"s
~ 51
50 48
g 43
d 40 T.
t 30 32
3 30
~ 79 ;' ~:
-a ~_
0 20 7
~.
`~ 10
0
10'
c
°;
a 0
Current Marijuana Use Current Alcohol Use
;o i~te !.DC.2 ~~9 ~ct~th l2 s~ ~,, ` ,wia; < wFs `,,ci ,',e,~~ _ .._ r'r„!!;e .md."~ur.'r~rt,r; ~cfue~~er't~ ~ !1C s~.
9
HO11 NATiONAi. DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY
Despite successful political campaigns to legalize "medical" marijuana in 15 states and the District of
Columbia, the cannabis (marijuana) plant itself is not medicine. While there may be medical value in
some of the individual components of the cannabis plant, the fact remains that smoking marijuana is an
inefficient and harmful method for delivering the constituent elements that have or may have medicinal
value. As always, the FDA process remains the only scientific and legally recognized procedure for bring-
ingsafe and effective medications to the American public.To date, the FDA has notfound smoked mari-
juana to be either safe or effective medicine for any condition (see more on medical marijuana below).
The Administration steadfastly opposes drug legalization. Legalization runs counter to a public health
approach to drug control because it would increase the availability of drugs, reduce their price, under-
mineprevention activities, hinder recovery support efforts, and pose a significant health and safety risk
to all Americans, especially our youth.
Many"quick fixes"for America's complex drug problem have been presented throughout our country's
history. In the past half-century, these proposals have included calls for allowing the legal sale and use
of marijuana. However, the complex policy issues concerning drug use and the disease of addiction do
not lend themselves to such simple solutions.
On November 2, 2010, Californians rejected one simplistic solution (Proposition 19) that would have
legalized marijuana in theirstate. Parents, communityand business leaders, and otherconcerned citizens
realized marijuana legalization was a gamble they were not willing to take. Our Administration opposed
Proposition 19 and was joined by a number of political figures, including candidates for governor and
U.S. Senate. In the months leading up to the vote, the RAND Corporation released two independent
studies that examined the theory that California would realize a net benefit from legalization and see
reductions in the illicit proceeds and violence associated with drug trafficking.
The first RAND study appraised the claim that California would realize financial gains from marijuana
legalization. Counter to proponents' assertions, the study concluded that the pretax retail price of
marijuana in California would decline by as much as 80 percent to levels not seen in 30 years due to less
legal risk for suppliers, more automation, and economies of scale through farm field and greenhouse
production. They concluded that the retail price would have been dependent upon the taxes (sales
and excise), the structure of the regulatory scheme, and how taxes and regulations would be enforced.
Moreover, the revenue from taxes would be dependent upon the compliance rate: by growing their
own marijuana or purchasing it on the gray market, some consumers could avoid the taxes.
In addition, white proponents of Proposition 19 argue the high cost of enforcing existing marijuana
laws (an amount they suggest is nearly $2 billion) renders legalization a compelling course of action,
the RAND study estimates these costs to be dramatically lower ($300 million). Finally, the RAND report
raises a powerful counter to the arguments made by proponents of Proposition 19, namely that tegal-
izingmarijuana would result in increased consumption of the drug.49
Legalization supporters have also claimed that illicit profits to Mexican traffickers and violence in both
Mexico and the United States would be reduced if drugs were sold on the open market. A second RAND
study examined this argument and found that marijuana accounts for only about 15 to 26 percent of
Mexican traffickers'revenue (orabout $1.5 to $2.0 billion) and therefore, legalization inCalifornia-which
accounts for about one-seventh of U.S. marijuana consumption-would likely only reduce drug traf-
22
CHAPTP.R 1. STt2I:NGTHEti Er~ORTS TO PRrVCN"I' DRUG USr [N OUR COMN1UNlT1ES
ficking organizations'profits by between 2 and 4 percent.The extent of such smuggling would depend
upon the actions of Federal and state governments to prevent this illicit commerce.
Ultimately, RAND concluded that any projections with respect to reduced revenues leading to less
violence are particularly uncertain.The researchers found that some mechanisms (i.e., disruptions in the
illicit workforce due to declining revenues) suggest a large decline in revenues might provoke increased
violence in the short-term but reduced violence after several years.50
Controls and prohibitions help to keep prices higher, and higher prices help keep use rates relatively
low. This is because drug use, especially among young people, is known to be sensitive to price.
Our current legal drugs-alcohol and tobacco-are examples of commercialized products with addic-
tionpotential and high usage rates fueled by easy availability. Although these products are taxed, neither
produces a net economic benefit to society. The healthcare and criminal justice costs associated with
alcohol and tobacco far surpass the tax revenue they generate, and little of the taxes collected on these
substances is contributed to the offset of their substantial social and health costs.
Federal excise taxes collected on alcohol in 2007 totaled around $9 billions' and states collected around
$5.6 billion SZTaken together, this is less than 10 percent of the more than $185 billion inalcohol-related
social costs such as healthcare, lost productivity, and criminal justice system expenses.53 Nor does tobacco
carry its economic weight when taxed: each year, tobacco use generates only about $23 billion in taxes but
results in more than $183 billion per year in direct medical expenses as well as lost productivity.54
Further, our current experience with legal, regulated prescription drugs shows that legalizing drugs only
widens their availability and potential for abuse, no matter what controls are in place. In 2007, drug-induced
deaths climbed to more than 38,000, according to CDC.SSThis increase was driven primarily by drug over-
dosedeaths from the non-medical use of legal pharmaceutical drugs, particularly narcotic pain relievers.se
Advocates of legalization scythe costs of prohibition, mainly through the criminaljustice system, place
a great burden on taxpayers and governments. White there are certainly costs to current prohibitions,
legalizing drugs would not cut costs associated with the criminal justice system (see figure). Arrests for
alcohol-related crimes, such as violations of liquor laws and driving under the influence, totaled nearly
2.7 million in 200857-far more than arrests for all illegal drug use.Thesealcohol-related arrests are costly.
Legalizing marijuana would further saddle government with the dual burden of regulating a new legal
market while continuing to payfor the negative effects associated with an underground market whose
providers have little economic incentive to disappear.
23
2017 ~A7"t0\'AL DRUG CONTROL, STRATEGY'
tic tare e . Drug Possession Ciffenders in State Prisons
7
6.0
~.
0 6
0
N
5
4.4
0
h
a 4
ai
.
.
. 3 2.7
0
c
d
2
1.4
a
1
0.4
0.3
~
~ 01
0 ~~
Drug Drug Drug Drug Marijuana Marijuana Marijuana
possession offenders, offenders offenders ontydrug only only
offenders no prior held for held for offenders, possession possession
sentences crimes crimes no prior offenders offenders,
involving involving sentences no prior
marijuana only sentences
marijuana
At a time when our efforts should be focused on reversing a troubling increase in drug use, legalization
would only make matters worse by lowering the drug's price, increasing its use, and creating billions of
dollars in new social costs.
`Medical' Marijuana
Marijuana and other drugs are addictive and unsafe, especially for use by young people. Unfortunately,
efforts to "medicalize"marijuana have widened the public acceptance and availability of the drug.
There is no substitute for the scientific approval process employed by the FDA. For a drug to be made
available to the public as medicine, the FDA requires rigorous research followed by tests for safety and
efficacy. Only then can a substance be classified as medicine and prescribed by qualified health care
professionals to patients.
24
CI-IAP~'IT.R 1. STRt;NtUT'Hi?T~ I~:PI~ORTS T'O YRITVI:NT DRUG iJSI? IN OUR COMMUNIT[I.S
In the wake of state and local laws that permit distribution of"medical"marijuana, dozens of localities
have been left to grapple with poorly written laws that bypass the FDA process and allow marijuana to
be used as a so-called medicine. John Knight, director of the Center for Adolescent Substance Abuse
Research at Children's Hospital Boston, recently wrote:"Marijuana has gotten a free ride of sorts among
the general public, who view it asnon-addictive and less impairing than other drugs. However, medical
science tells a different story:'
Similarly, Christian Thurstone, aboard-certified Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, an Addiction
Psychiatrist, and also an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Colorado, said:
"In the absence of credible data, this debate is being dominated by bad science and
misinformation from people interested in using medical marijuana as a step to legalization
for recreational use. $ypassing the FDA's well.-established approval process has created a mess
that especially a$ects children and adolescents. Young people, who are clearly being targeted
with medical marijuana advertising and diversion, are most vulnerable to developing marijuana
addiction and sul~ering from its lasting effects."
-Dr. Christian "lhurstone, IvID, Assistant Professor at Denver Health & Hospital Authority
In the United States, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has approved 109 researchers to
perform bona fide research with marijuana, marijuana extracts, and marijuana derivatives such ascan-
nabidioland cannabinol.Studies include evaluation of abuse potential, physical/psychological effects,
adverse effects, therapeutic potential, and detection. Fourteen researchers are approved to conduct
research with smoked marijuana on human subjects.
As a result of this extensive research, several marijuana-based medications have been found to be
safe and effective by the FDA and are available for doctors to prescribe. Dronabinol, a synthetic form
of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the most active ingredient in marijuana, is used to treat nausea and
vomiting caused by chemotherapy. It is also used to treat loss of appetite and weight loss in people
who have AIDS. Nabilone, a synthetic drug that mimics marijuana's main ingredient, is also prescribed to
treat nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy. Other medications based on one or more
marijuana components are being carefully studied.
Aside from the problems accompanying the commercialization of marijuana, smoking any drug is
unhealthy. That is why no major medical association has come out in favor of smoked marijuana for
widespread medical use. For example, the American Cancer Society, American Glaucoma Foundation,
National Pain Foundation, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and other medical societies are not in
favor of smoked "medical"marijuana.The American Medical Association has called for more research on
the subject, with the caveat that this "should not beviewed as anendorsement ofstate-based medical
cannabis programs, the legalization of marijuana, or that scientific evidence on the therapeutic use of
cannabis meets the current standards for a prescription drug product:'
25 -
20]] NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics:
Evidence suggests that pediatricians should continue their vigilant efforts to prevent the use of
this drug by young people. The abuse of marijuana by adolescents is a major health problem
with social, academic, developmental, and legal ramifications.58 Marijuana is an addictive,
mind-altering drug capable of inducing dependency. Pediatricians are obligated to develop
a reasoned approach to dealing with its use by children and adolescents so they can provide
appropriate care and counsel... Additional reasons for concern and counsel include anxieties
and uncertainties about the potential harm that marijuana use may cause to adolescents dur-
ing aperiod of rapid change in hormonal secretion, possible teratogenicity, and the known
consequences of long-term use.
This Administration joins major medical societies in supporting increased research into marijuana's
many components, delivered in a safe (non-smoked) manner, in the hopes that they can be available
for physicians to legally prescribe when proven to be safe and effective. Outside the context of Federally
approved research, the use and distribution of marijuana is prohibited in the United States.
26
~.~-
''~kt~_~d A~r~
°~ -w. -
RESOLUTION N0.2011-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO IMPLEMENT
THE PUBLIC SAFETY SUBCOMNBTTEE
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING MEDICAL
MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AND RELATED POLICIES
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has been monitoring and studying medical
marijuana related issues for the past two years; and
WHEREAS, the Public Safety Subcommittee took up the this issue and held hearings to
receive City staff and public input on May 18`~ and June 15~`, 2011; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of staff input, the City Manager's recommendation,
input from the public, and their own deliberations, the Public Safety Subcommittee developed
and presented to City Council a recommendation on how to proceed regarding medical
marijuana dispensaries and related policies; and
WHEREAS, at the July 12~' City Council meeting, the City Council considered such
recommendation, and received and considered further staff and public input, including staff's
request for further direction.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula
Vista directs City Staff to:
1. Prepare and process for final City Council consideration an ordinance (or ordinances} to
accomplish the following:
a. prohibit medics marijuana "dispensarie " 1
~e~l-e}~ ~ pera~i~; ~A` ~~ ~ 1 bJ -~1"I~}~ Z~~$g ~~ ~Y
~' -~i~-u~rt~1-Ls vcbEt~~nt~, ~pEe -~~et~u. ~~e-r~ ~ G ~~
b. Continue to allow conventional patient/care~iver medical marijuana distribution
(defined as a health clinic, a health care facility, a residential care facility for
persons with chronic, life-threatening illnesses, a licensed residential care facility
for the elderly, and/or a residential hospice or a home health agency as authorized
by Health & Safety Code Section 11362.7(d)(1}};
c. Continue to allow medical marijuana delivery service;
2. Work to develop appropriate regulations for Items l.b and c; and
3. I~-.ase~~e ~i-~eee~s a~ +~ ~'V.~ -_`_'-r~'^., ~`;*~, r,y ~i};,~rther consider
MMJ "collectives" that operate in accordance with the 2008 Attorney General's
Guidelines by c ducting fiuther public outreach and study to evaluate the extent of
H
o~ ~,rp~"~~s
_ 2--13
Resolution No. 2011-
Page 2
community need, impact on neighhorhoods and whether or not there exists an acceptable
model of operation with matching, legally defensible regulations.
~i~1 ~~~"~~~ ~ ~ ~v~ ~(.~U~L1~ ~~ ° v~~kmi ~~~ Wi nt- k ~ fir'
~ ~ ~-y
Presented by: Approved as to form by: ,~ l ~~ ~~ $~
~ Itp~jV~~ VWt~t+~
Chance C. Hawkins
Deputy City Attorney
en Goo ins
C Att ey
C:1Dosumwts and Sadngskhayip\I.ocal SedingslTanporary Internee files10LK61Rao MMJ «c (2).dx