The people have spoken about cannabis in Benicia. Citizens from all over the city participated in a survey offered by the city’s virtual online Benicia Town Hall. This was the first survey issued by the site, which was established to help seek community input on issues facing the city.
The issue on the table for the inaugural survey was the discussion of cannabis in Benicia, particularly after the passage of Proposition 64 in November, which legalized recreational use of cannabis by those above the age of 21. The Benicia City Council will be using the results of the survey as a guide for any further decisions regarding cannabis regulations.
Several questions regarding cannabis were posed in the survey, yielding a variety of responses. Some results may be shocking, others may be obvious, but below are some of the findings from the first Town Hall survey.
Benicians who responded to the question of whether or not the city should allow commercial cannabis dispensaries, 58 percent said dispensaries should sell products for recreational and medical purposes, 14 percent said they should only sell to medical customers and 27 percent felt they should not be allowed at all. Respondents said no to allow cannabis dispensaries to operate in the downtown area but said yes to selling cannabis in shopping centers and the Industrial Park. People overwhelmingly supported limiting the number of dispensaries within the city. On average, survey takers said there should be three to 44 dispensaries in the city. There was agreement on dispensaries being at least 600 feet away from schools and a 500 foot distance away from parks.
There was some debate on several of the issues in the survey.
“Don’t get suckered by the promise of tax revenue,” a survey taker said. “This industry will kill Benicia’s ambiance. Once the industry grows enough, Phillip Morris and RJR will jump in, begin acquiring, and the industry as we currently know it will vanish, leaving a lot of vacancies in its wake.”
“People should not have to leave our safe town to go to Vallejo or places like it and spend their money there when we can tax it here and maybe lower our property tax or improve infrastructure with all the money,” another survey taker said. “I didn’t vote for legalization but if it’s legal then it’s time to stop making people feel bad about it, let them purchase their goods in their own home town.”
Some who participated in the survey were not satisfied with its structure and presentation.
“This survey is not well executed,” one respondent said of the Town hall survey. “Only a small percentage of residents have responded and this page allows multiple entries from the same household. It will not represent the true opinions of Benicia residents. A better approach may be to have a mailer delivered to each Benicia resident to mail in. Or phone survey. Thank you.”
The results will be discussed at the next City Council meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 15 To see the survey’s full results, go to http://www.ci.benicia.ca.us/beniciatownhall#peak_democracy.
Sharing is caring!
Respondents also said yes to downtown storefronts. The people I know in cannabusiness are offended by the notion that their industry may be welcome in Benicia provided the point of sale is kept out of sight in the Industrial Park. The vote last November was proof enough of the appetite for regulated/taxed cannabis in our town. It is already here in the unregulated/taxed dark market. We haven’t the time for more surveys and polls trying to get a different outcome.
I have not yet heard a word of protest here or otherwise from First Street merchants or business organizations about the possibility of top-tier cannabis on our main tourist attraction. This will be where the greatest debate will occur. I contend that Benicia’s top-tier approach to cannabis will attract tourists just as the Napa/Sonoma top-tier wine industry has, a point made earlier by commenter “B.B”.
“California city experiences second oil boom”, with a photo of Mayor Patterson and City Manager Tinfow, business suits, shoulder to shoulder, crossed arms. Time/Newsweek cover?, CNN? Jeanne Moos in Benicia?!
Some citizens I have spoken with about the cannabis issue believe that if you can smell cannabis, you can be inhaling the psychoactive thc. The characteristic pungent aromas are from the terpenes that begin to evaporate at around 70 degrees. THC has no aroma and requires temperatures exceeding 300 degrees to vaporize. Once Benicia consumers make the change to vape systems to administer their preferred strain, the volume of second-hand smoke in the community will diminish greatly, and can be quantified as a tool in the sustainability effort.
Another rapidly expanding market is in the sale of cannabis oil extraction technologies. A Seattle company recently announced a Spinning Disc Reactor system using only distilled water. Fresh harvest can be used, and the waste is sent to a chamber where microbes consume it.
http://www.infinitysupercritical.com/spinning-disc-reactor.html
It will all be open at the August 15th Council meeting. The report may not be to your liking Stan, but then again it might be. Will be interesting. The council will have very big decision to make. Who knows may follow other city’s in Contra Costa County. No store front sales/retail.The earliest we can have the election on the tax is in June but it could go to November. Better in June. See you Aug 15th
There appears to be more responses than reported. Maybe as many as 800. We shall see. That could change the opinion of the poll. It could go against store front sales of Cannabis.
If it has been legalized, then let’s have it in store fronts. Hiding it in back rooms fools no one. As I have heard many city councils say over the years, the industrial park is not set up to be retail type stores. If I can walk into any gas station, 7/11, or any other type of store to buy a cigarette I should be able to do the same for cannibis. Require IDs, tax it, and let the market place decide where to sell it.
John how about prostitution. Is that ok to. Do you want that. Or even open gambling on First Street. Do you want that also. Just would like to hear your opinion. How about nude dancing and porn stores?
I am right on. There is 1410 responses that will be reported at the Aug. 15th council meeting. The overall responses for retail commercial area sales is about 56% no. The residence have spoken. Now we shall see what the council does.
They still would have to come and park in the illegal health hazard downtown parking lot. If you have a disability no luck parking in the lot. Not ADA compliant. Where do all of the oils and fluids from cars go? Into the ground water and bay. Where does all the dust go? In our lungs, homes and cars. City of Benicia acts like they care about the well being of its taxpayers, they have no clue. Until the city does something about this lot please stay out of this lot for my families health the whole communities health.
I agree., How about leaf blowers. Dusty and noise.
Lots of people drink alcohol. Lots eat fast food. But I have never met anyone who wants a fast food outlet or liquor store opening near their home. And there are lots of homes near storefronts downtown.
The state of California is going to be the biggest grower of cannabis in the United State. Just go out along hiway 58. Got to California City. Town of 13,000 will grow to over 25,000 just because of the tax from growing. There are other so called isolated areas in California that will also benefit from this issue. If the so called pro cannabis folks are so excited why not the Seeno Property. Grow, manufacture and distribute. Does anyone think the hiway to Rio Vista is not open for this kind of growing business. I know where it will happen. Does the City Council know the unintended consequences? I do not think so. They cannot even figure out what this city should be. Image wise. .Be prepared for something you know nothing about. I include myself as not an expert. But I do know supply and demand.
The ten regulated dispensaries in Vallejo are frustrated by that city’s disinterest in discussing policy for cultivators/processors. Millions of dollars of investor capital are behind the dam waiting for a green light in Benicia. We can corner the market in Solano County and parts of Contra Costa and Napa by welcoming all components of this industry. The county may have some funds to help with our staff costs since cannabis in Benicia will be bigger than beer. International tourism to California will spike next year, so we want to be ready to have visitors come to First Street and empty their pockets. New London Cannabis Cafe and Tea Room will be a reality someday.
A California tourist magnet is born.
https://tinyurl.com/ybxyoxxr
Not new Stan. Already commented on it. I have been to this place and also California City. Not new. Have you been to either place. If you have you will understand the importance of both places for growing Cannabis. They will not be the only places that are out of the way of the general public. The big reason for growth in both areas is the need for labor etc. Will not be a paradise. Just another place to live like Boron, Ca. Ever been there Stan. It is just off of hiway 58. Think 20 Mule Team.
Stan tourism, glamour and emotion will not bring this city to the correct decision. Clear thinking or as I like to say critical thinking will bring the decision. By the way if there is an ordinance passed on no drinking in Benicia parks there goes your Bocce Ball party time without a permit. Stan if cannabis is all about party time, glamour, tourism and emotion we have a bigger problem in Benicia than I do believe most suspect.
Stan what is the rate of store front retail per population. Is it 13,000? Maybe that is why Vallejo has 10.
Stan –
I’m confused. Your earlier comments on this topic were about your personal pain management and medical issues. You now talk about pot-tourism and compare marijuana with intoxicants such as beer and wine.
I don’t want pot to be “bigger than beer” in Benicia. I don’t want stoned tourists roaming our streets. Those are tax dollars that I don’t want and Benicia doesn’t need.
Thinking about beer and wine, I can have a beer without becoming drunk. I can enjoy a glass of wine without becoming intoxicated. Can I enjoy a joint without becoming impaired? I guess these pot tourists will all be like Bill Clinton and won’t inhale?
Keep pot out of Benicia. For our kids. For all of our safety..
Tom, You don’t want stoned tourists roaming our streets? Why not? The restaurants will surely benefit, as munchies (an increased appetite) is one of the harmless side effects of smoking/using MJ.
Can you enjoy a joint without becoming impaired? Most definitely. Unlike, alcohol, or scripts, most users of MJ maintain full functionality. I’m willing to bet that you have come across a multitude of “stoned” people in your life without being the wiser, including tourist on First Street.
As an aside, Carl Sagan reportedly enjoyed the benefits of MJ. Can’t say that I think he suffered from much impairment.
Carl Sagan was obviously an incredibly brilliant man. Would you want him driving down your street with your kids playing in the front yard after he “enjoyed” the benefits of MJ?
I would love to see the studies showing that someone can enjoy MJ without becoming impaired. Have I come across impaired people in my life without being the wiser? No doubt. Do I want to exacerbate and increase that level of public impairment? No!
Do I want stoned tourists roaming the streets? NO! Why not? Public safety concerns! Restaurants will benefit? I don’t care! Whatever benefit is derived by restaurants will not be worth the societal cost (and real taxpayer costs) of pot-heads roaming (and driving) the streets of Benicia.
Tom, I would honestly and truly not have a problem with Carl Sagan driving down my street with my kids playing in the front yard after he “enjoyed” the benefits of MJ. What is the “impairment”, as you understand it?
What “public safety concerns” stems from people (regardless of their state) roaming the streets?
People that are fundamentally ignorant about the range of responses possible from cannabis consumption have formed a stereotypical image in their minds about how a person will behave when they have consumed it. The small and shrinking minority view in our town is a testament to the degree of intelligence a majority of Benicians possess regarding cannabis matters. We have heard the voice of youth here from a BHS senior, indicating that young folks are not buying the lies of the prohibitionists and, like myself, view legalization as the undoing of the greatest civil rights issue in our country’s history. If a person voted in the last election here, and is vehemently against regulated and taxed cannabis, nobody you voted for expressed a desire to continue prohibition in Benicia. With each generation comes more acceptance of responsible non-medicinal cannabis consumption, and, as pointed out by the aforementioned BHS senior, there will be two senior classes worth of new voters in our 2018 elections. Incumbents or new candidates are sunk if they advocate for the extreme minority view on cannabis in Benicia. The war on cannabis has failed, acceptance is growing rapidly in the world, the nation, and here in our town.
“M——-a is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death” – Harry J. Anslinger, the government’s original cannabis ignoramus. Here are more quotes from Anslinger. Are there residents of Benicia that believe the same things? I hope not.
People that are fundamentally ignorant about the range of responses possible from cannabis consumption have formed a stereotypical image in their minds about how a person will behave when they have consumed it. The small and shrinking minority view in our town is a testament to the degree of intelligence a majority of Benicians have in cannabis matters. We have heard the voice of youth here from a BHS senior, indicating that young folks are not buying the lies of the prohibitionists and, like myself, view legalization as the undoing of the greatest civil rights issue in our country’s history. If a person voted in the last election here, and is vehemently against regulated and taxed cannabis, nobody you voted for expressed a desire to continue prohibition in Benicia. With each generation comes more acceptance of responsible cannabis consumption, and, as pointed out by the aforementioned BHS senior, there will be two senior classes worth of new voters in our 2018 elections. Incumbents or new candidates are sunk if they advocate for the extreme minority view on cannabis in Benicia. The war on cannabis has failed, acceptance is growing rapidly in the world, the nation, and here in our town.
“M——-a is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind” – Harry J. Anslinger, the original cannabis ignoramus, with a handful of loyal disciples right here in our town.
People that are fundamentally ignorant about the range of responses possible from cannabis consumption have formed a stereotypical image in their minds about how a person will behave when they have consumed it. The small and shrinking minority view in our town is a testament to the degree of intelligence a majority of Benicians have in cannabis matters. We have heard the voice of youth here from a BHS senior, indicating that young folks are not buying the lies of the prohibitionists and, like myself, view legalization as the undoing of the greatest civil rights issue in our country’s history. If a person voted in the last election here, and is vehemently against regulated and taxed cannabis, nobody you voted for expressed a desire to continue prohibition in Benicia. With each generation comes more acceptance of responsible non-medicinal cannabis consumption, and, as pointed out by the aforementioned BHS senior, there will be two senior classes worth of new voter potential in our 2018 elections. Incumbents or new candidates are sunk if they advocate for the extreme minority view on cannabis in Benicia. The war on cannabis has failed, acceptance is growing rapidly in the world, the nation, and here in our town.
“M——-a is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind” – Harry J. Anslinger, the government’s original cannabis ignoramus. Here are more quotes from Harry. Are there residents of Benicia that still think the same way? I hope not.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/harry+j.+anslinger
Thomas –
A well educated and well spoken person such as yourself does not know the definition of impairment? Hard to believe. From Merriam Webster online:
Impaired – unable to function normally or safely (as when operating a motor vehicle) because of intoxication by alcohol or drugs
California Vehicle Code 23152 VC makes it a crime to drive under the influence (DUI) of alcohol, drugs (including marijuana) or alcohol and drugs combined.
What public safety concerns? Impaired people doing things that un-impaired people would not do, especially behind the wheel. International Pot Tourist destination? Ludacris!
“Tom”, what’s with the mask?
Bob, No reason to lash out and start name calling. I was not insulting Tom or you and was being very civil. Honestly, I don’t even know why you are injecting yourself into a topic you evidently seem to nothing about. If you have something useful to say, I encourage it. But, your typical say nothing comment just seem like a waste and just a vehicle for you to start name calling.
All I did is answer your comment. You have a personal problem with me. It is not new. I did no name calling. Site the name calling that I said. Read my comments. I do know much more about this topic than you may think.
Bob, Don’t get distracted.
I am not distracted. I seem to distract you.
Thomas I notice you stay away from Tom.
Wrong.
Thanks for the compliment, Tom. I asked about what you thought impairment meant in regards to MJ. I do know the basic definition No offense, however, I believe that the uninitiated think it causes folks to stumble around incoherently, as what happens when people drink a bit to much or are under the influence of other actual seriously impairing drugs. However. that is not the typical case. In fact, studies have shown that simple and complex reaction time is not significantly affected by marijuana or by the interaction between drug conditions and the amount of information transmitted during the task, Consider that there are plenty of cases of top level athletes having competed and performed very w.ll while having been stoned.
Judgement is also not typically impaired and people under the influence typical are actually a bit more careful, as certain perceptions are more heightened.
That said, I believe that the picture that some folks are trying to paint still hearkens back to the “Reefer Madness” mindset. A mindset that only qualifies as pure sensationalism. Stan’s first paragraph, above, is spot-on.
I do realize that you have your concerns. However, since legalization has passed in California there is absolutely no guarantee that folks will not be roaming around Benicia after having partaken in a little doobage, regardless of whether there are storm fronts that sell such.
*store fronts
What is the difference between retail Commercial sales and store front sales? Please explain.;
Bob, Let me explain what I did here. I inadvertently, or by auto-correct, had “storm fronts” in my previous comment. In my subsequent comment I typed the correct “storefronts”.
*”store fronts”
Thomas –
Glad that no offense was taken. None was intended. “Reefer Madness” was certainly an extreme depiction and an example of pure sensationalism, as you put it. The opposite extreme position and pure sensationalism is that pot is not an intoxicant. The truth lies somewhere between the extremes.
From my college days, I witnessed pot smokers who ranged from simply acting goofy to complete couch potatoes. I can’t recall seeing someone who smoked pot who didn’t exhibit some loss of control and cognitive function. Of course, that’s why they smoked pot. I never recall someone stating that it tastes so good and matches well with food.
I appreciate that you are citing scientific studies. But there are many conflicting studies on this topic. Choose what you want to believe. A recent article on http://www.drugabuse.gov stated, “Marijuana significantly impairs judgment, motor coordination, and reaction time, and studies have found a direct relationship between blood THC concentration and impaired driving ability.”
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving
Another interesting article to consider regarding Colorado’s pot legalization:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/07/marijuana-devastated-colorado-dont-legalize-nationally-jeff-hunt-column/536010001/
Colorado legalized recreational use of pot in 2012. In the years since, Colorado has seen an increase in marijuana related traffic deaths, poison control calls, and emergency room visits. The marijuana black market has increased in Colorado, not decreased. And, numerous Colorado marijuana regulators have been indicted for corruption.
Four years after legalization, taxes due to marijuana amounted to about 1% of the states taxes raised. Was that meager increase in discretionary spending worth it? What was it spent on? “In 2012, we were promised funds from marijuana taxes would benefit our communities, particularly schools. Dr. Harry Bull, the Superintendent of Cherry Creek Schools, one of the largest school districts in the state, said, ‘So far, the only thing that the legalization of marijuana has brought to our schools has been marijuana.'”
And JUVENILE arrests for possession were up, particularly among people of color. To quote the article (from USA Today), “According to the Colorado Department of Public Safety, arrests in Colorado of black and Latino youth for marijuana possession have increased 58% and 29% respectively after legalization. This means that Black and Latino youth are being arrested more for marijuana possession after it became legal.”
I understand that pot is currently in Benicia and has been in Benicia for decades. We can’t eradicate it completely, but we can take reasonable steps to limit it. We should. Keep pot stores out of Benicia. Especially for our kids. But also for all of our safety.
Tom, Thanks for all the information. There is certainly enough to respond to point by point, and with credible counter-points I might add (anecdotal information notwithstanding). However, some of these points, especially in regards to Colorado have been discussed here and at numerous other data/info sources. I don’t have much time to to rehash all the info, however I feel it is important to address the DUI stats in Colorado.
Colorado law enforcement and courts did not track cannabis-impaired driving prior to 2014, the year adult-use cannabis sales began, which means there is no way to compare cannabis DUI occurrence before and after cannabis became legally available to adults. In 2014 and 2015 less than 15% of all DUI citations issued by state troopers involved suspected cannabis use, whether used alone or with other substances, and under 8% involved cannabis alone. Despite legal access to cannabis for adults, the overwhelming majority of impaired
driving incidents in Colorado involve alcohol and drugs other than cannabis. The total number of cannabis-related DUIs decreased slightly (1.3%) from 2014 to 2015, but more data is needed to determine if the decline will become a trend.
The follow is a list of references (sorry, it is kind of long), that in part, supports what is stated above.
Ingold, John. “Marijuana involved in 12 percent of Colorado State Patrol DUI cases”. http://www.thecannabist.co/2015/01/30/co
lorado-state-patrol-stoned-driving-statistics-dui-cases/28879/
Sun, Chhun. “Report: Marijuana-related DUI citations in Colorado
dropped slightly in 2015”. http://coloradosprings.com/report-marijuana
-related-dui-citations-in-colorado-dropped-slightly-in-2015/article/1569870
Miron, J. “Marijuana Policy in Colorado.” CATO Institute Working Paper.
October 23, 2014.
National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration, “2014 Traffic Safety Performance Measures for Colorado”. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/STSI/8_CO/2014/8_CO_2014.htm
Colorado Department of Transportation, “Drugged Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes”.https://www.codot.gov/safety/alcohol-and-impaired-
driving/druggeddriving/assets/DrugFatal_DataasofJanuary2012.pdf
Barker, Lisa. & Baumann, Carsten. “Influential Factors in Healthy Living Survey (IFHL),” Retail Marijuana Public Health Advisory Committee.
January 12, 2015. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/monitoring-
trends-marijuana-use
Compton, Richard. & Berning, Amy. “Drug and Alcohol Crash Risk,”
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Feb. 2015.
Press Release, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Feb. 2015.
Asbridge, Hayden & Cartwright. “Acute cannabis consumption and motor vehicle collision risk: systematic review of observational studies and meta
-analysis,”British Medical Journal, 2012.
Rogeberg, O. & Elvik, R. “The effects of cannabis intoxication on motor vehicle collision revisited and revised.” Addiction. 2016.
Elvik, R. “Risk of Road Accident Associated with the Use of Drugs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Evidence from Epidemiological Studies.” Accident Analysis & Prevention, 60, 254–267.June 5, 2012
Tom your comments are appreciated and I hope by all. We know at least two that do not agree. If the comment by the guy that says “Why Not” is what the typical pro cannabis crowd thinks and says we already know the problem is bigger than most ,even can conceive. Keep fighting.
With the new vape systems and cartridges, a consumer can choose to use high THC, low to no CBD concentrate for an energetic response. They can also consume a concentrate with a balance of THC:CBD for a more “stoned” response.
Once again, it is the responsible use of cannabis. You should not drive or operate machinery. You should have a designated driver as you would with alcohol.
So a person can choose to use an oil extraction mixture with more pain management active ingredient, or a mixture of pain management and intoxicant? I assume that there are oils that maximize the intoxicant effect? Are you willing to make public smoking of marijuana illegal in Benicia? Or should we permit bong hits at the Gazebo?
Keep it all out of Benicia. It’s legal in California. I get that. Get it someplace else and consume it in your home. Keep it off the streets. Benicia as an International Pot Tourist destination? Ludacris!
It’s already here.
Tom you are correct. The pro cannabis crowd will be all over you. See comment below yours. Very typical and did admit he did not care about stoned folks walking our streets with the comment “WHY NOT”? The commenter is not a critical thinker.
I do believe the main issue is do the wonderful residents of Benicia want commercial retail sales in our city. That would mean store front sales on First Street, Raleys shopping center and also Solano Square plus other commercial retail sales areas. I think the folks that are pro cannabis will get a big surprise on the out come of the survey. As I said, not as the pro cannabis folks believed the survey would show.. The residents have said not in my back yard. Is that surprising to the pro retail; commercial sales backers? Maybe or did they under estimate the local residents., They may have. The Benicia City Council has a major problem facing them. Are they going to be influenced by the so called monetary gain which no one knows what that could be or will they say we are a community of overall values and we do not want it. The council member who comes out against retail sales will be a hero.. That person will win in a landslide. Values for this wonderful city will win big time. Any opponent will lose on those issues. We must consider just who we want making decisions in this wonderful city. Is it the Art Community? No. I do believe this city wants the residents who want an All American city will prevail. I do believe I am on the winning side on this issue. I do hope the wonderful residents of this city like the All American city values.
You do realize the survey referenced in the article is already completed, and the majority of participants voted to allow dispensaries in shopping centers?
According to another commenter here, the poll could be manipulated and should be disregarded. This may account for the higher number of anti-cannabis crowd at 27%.
Full report on the council meeting on 8-15
The federal 1000 foot rule can be thrown out now that the DOJ is hog-tied on prosecuting anyone that is in compliance with state law. I never did understand the thinking behind the 600 foot rule. Here in Benicia, we sell alcohol and cigarettes across the street from an elementary school. There are no reported incidents of the kids trying to buy booze or smokes there.
The new poll will be just the opposite of what you are saying.
The poll was completed but not fully reported. Only report was for e-mail ect. Anonymous was not reported. So the poll goes from 466 to 1410 reported. That poll will show that 55% say no on First Street 58% say no on Solano Square and Raleys, 60% say yes in the Industrial Park. Full rep[ort on Aug.15 Council Meeting. You do not have to take my word. Read the report.
Where is this new poll located? I haven’t seen any sort of information on how or where to participate.
Never said there was a new survey/poll I said the poll was completed not fully reported. The poll is closed. The complete poll/survey shows 1410 not 466. .Check the council meeting packet on late Wednesday Aug. 9th. or tune- in to the council meeting Aug.15th. Till then “The Owl” knows.
It is now available on the Council meeting agenda for Aug.15.
Benicia Industrial Park Association weighs in on dispensaries in BIP. NO! All other components of cannabusiness welcome!
Thank you, Rod Sherry, and BIPA.
I do believe main stream retail sites have pulled ahead by a large margin.
Final survey=First Street 55% no, 40.2% yes; Shopping centers=47.2 yes, 47.8 n0 {big change from the 467 result52.8% yes 41.8% no}. Did not pull ahead by large margin. It appears the residents may not want store front retail cannabis.
Interesting. What do you think accounts for the shift in statistics? Why do a large bulk of those against cannabis seem unable or unwilling to report their name and residence? Isn’t it a flawed design and and of itself, that a survey for a city accepts votes that have zero accountability?
Another commenter here admitted cheating on the poll “one time” to test it, and concluded the results should not be considered valid. Even with being able to cheat, the anti-cannabis crowd could not reach past 27%. The community has spoken via the vote last year. The Industrial Park has spoken regarding storefronts in BIP, and extended a welcome to cannabusiness There is a conspicuous absence of protest from the greater business community, or the residents in general, save for a couple. The anti-cannabis crowd will have their work cut out for them trying to get three elected officials to walk back their support of ending local prohibition.
Stan if you are talking question #1 it went to 36.6 % on no. A person that did try to cheat on purpose did get a message not excepting their multi votes cast. It may well poss. But till then “The Owl” will be watching. By the way Stan have you looked at the final survey answers? It may surprise you.
96% of responses are from Benicia. Sorry it did not go the way you liked. Come the Council meeting a state your case. Where is your evidence it is flawed? If that is what your evidence shows IU could go along with your evidence. Till then “The Owl” is watching. The Council still could vote for retail sales but it will not be in the Industrial Park. There is no estimate on tax revenue at all.
I never accused anything of bring false, you’re placing that on me when that’s not at all what I said.
Assuming there are no statistical factors amongst any particular group, a larger sample size should not create large changes to results. However, what we saw was a significant chance in voting once we took into account unregistered votes. What this means, is that between people for and against this, people against it are overwhelmingly doing so anonymously, relative to those who support it. This is Interesting, since I cannot imagine why this would be the case. As someone on that side, could you provide some insight as to why so many against feel the need to with old their personal info? Is there some sort of worry?
No evidence on anything you say. I never used the word false. ,I used your term flawed and should have also added zero accountability. I am sorry youy do not agree with the survey. You will have your opportunity to express that at the Council meeting.
Also, how have you verified a 96%? Can you cite your tracking method?
Read the final survey. It states 96.1%. Plus other data. Read it and then take that ,up with the source. They can answer that at the council meeting. Go ahead pick a fight with me. You would be better off going to the source. That you will have to find out for yourself.
You are seeing fights where nine exist. I dislike the idea of trusting unregistered voters. That’s it. I just don’t see why more than half of the votes had to be unregistered.
None, not nine.
Maybe it is personal choice. Go to the council meeting and ask that question.
I do believe the City Manager will acknowledge the ability to skew the poll results. BIP laying out the welcome mat for cultivators/processors, labs, warehousing, ancillary business, and NO! to storefronts, was a big win for our side, not going over well with the opposition.
There is no mention in the staff report about corrupted data being presented as the poll results. I hope the Vice-Mayor drills into this one. I had no idea the survey could be manipulated to slant one way or the other until another resident/participant posted here that he was able to cheat in a “one time” test of the software (“I found that I was able to enter multiple opinions that, depending on the volume entered, could greatly skew the results”). I wonder how many other participants tested it one time as well? Even with a dirty poll, the results still favor dispensaries by about 2 to 1. The state does not require consideration of distance from parks and the federal 1000 foot rule has no teeth now that Congress has directed DOJ to not prosecute cases in compliance with state law.
Using the 600 foot rule from K-12 schools, youth centers, or day care, Southampton Center and First Street south of H Street are not in conflict.
Stan your opinion is noted. My advise is to go to the source and get the info you are stating. Find out if what you are saying is true. Because it was not mentioned does not mean there is corrupted data. Stan I do not know where you get your 2 to 1 ratio . That may have been the case in the first results posted. But not now. Also remember they also said 2/1 for the industrial park for retail sales. We all know that is not going to happen. So the term not in my back yard is valid.
This is a very significant endorsement for growing our local economy around a simple plant in nature. Great milestone of uncertainty met and gone. Downtown and Southampton is all we need. I do not like going to Vallejo.
The point of sale at retail locations is the smallest component of a larger economic supercharger driven by cannabusiness tenants in BIP. We’ll all be able to shop Benicia first in a few more months.
Stan I am glad you feel that way. Yes it could be approved. Are you proud of that. I hope not.
Environmental groups are raising strong opposition to cultivation of cannabis as proposed by Calif. Dept of Food and Ag, and they are attacking the draft EIR.
Who will win in the Brown administration? Enviros or Big Ag-Cannabusiness ?
Here is just one letter
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/environmental_health/pdfs/2017-07-31_COMMENTS.PDF
Thank you Greg.. Much needed info. I hope all read this important info and pass it on. We shall see how all this progresses. It is not just store front sales. It goes to the heart of California cannabis. The production side. That is a very important issue. Again, thank you Greg. Legal cannabis is more than the glamour, and tourism side. In Benicia it could be if the city residents want to take the All American city side. I believe in the latter. We shall see. Many unintended consequences lie ahead for this city. Be aware.
What does this paper have to do with the subject of selling cannabis is dispensaries? It requests amendment to allow environmental protection, but unless you could point it out, it makes zero objection to the legality of the plant itself.
B.B. I agree. The paper seems to be focused on environmental issues commonly associated with illegal grow operations. I personally agree. illegal grow operations are a environmental issue for many reasons. For instance, last year one of these illegal grow operations was the cause of a huge fire in the South Bay. The paper seems to suggest a proper path for new legitimate grow operations to follow in order to be permitted to grow, as well as an objection to not grandfather in previous illegal operations. Of course one of the benefits of prop 64, is that there will be a reduction in illegitimate grow operations. Win-win.
The EIR and the comment are not concerned with illegal operations. You don’t need an EIR for that. They are concerned with the environmental impacts (and, in the case of the comments, the failure to adequately address them) of licensing growing operations. They authors make a point that they do not object to legalization; they object to the impacts that would be allowed by CDFA and they write the comments in a way that they are ready to sue and stop the promulgation if the impacts are not addressed and mitigated (which of course will come at some not inconsiderable expense to Big Ag-Cannabusiness, something CDFA seems to be trying very hard to get around). Production will no doubt affect everything, so it will be interesting to see who wins the fight, enviros or Big Ag.
I see that: “to address past damage the impacts of cannabis cultivation in California,…. significant environmental impacts resulting from the unregulated cultivation of marijuana……..will crack down on the
illegal use of water and punish bad actors, while providing funds to restore
lands that have been damaged by illegal marijuana grows…. unlawful water diversions for marijuana irrigation…”; could all be pertinent to illegal grow operations And, that previously illegal operations, if allowed to continue should follow all mandates and regulations. It is a good idea and I don’t see that it presents a significant problem or that it is an anti-legalization stance.
Read the whole comment letter. Not just the preamble of what the CBD says CDFA should be doing that you quote. CBD are getting ready to sue CDFA for not doing what you quote in an adequate fashion in the proposal. The authors believe CDFA proposals are NOT going to result in substantially better cultivation than what illegal ops do now, unless they require major protections that CDFA must add, in their view. I agree adding them is good. But will CDFA do that and cost Big Ag a lot of money? Or will they fight it out in the courts? That could take a while.
Thanks Greg
Exactly why such things need regulated legality. Banning cultivation outright creates a lack of a structured system and creates no incentive for people to produce in a responsible, sustainable manner. By having open dialog, proper regulation can be formed to protect the environment. By preventing such rules from forming by outright prohibition, as some such as Livesay have suggested in this forum, it creates no structure, and no way for individuals to know what is and is not sustainable and appropriate.
And when they are properly regulated all those illegal growers are hopefully going to run out and get licenses, and water rights and then massively change their operations to protect the environment at great cost compared to what it costs them now. Hopefully.
Probably not. But obviously the individuals you are referring to are going to continue to break the law as they currently are, no matter what happens to the law. On the other hand, new potential growers will have limitations so they know what is and isn’t appropriate. If all is restricted, then those who wish to grow, but are not doing it for criminal intent have no guidance, since no appropriate eco-law will exist.
will they have limitations? CBD and other enviros seem to think the proposed limitations are insufficient. Which gets back to the question I posed: which way will the Brown admin go?
I said the production side. read what I said.
Feds fund first study of cannabis to fight opioid crisis brought to us by Big Pharma, among others.
https://tinyurl.com/y8asda8z
Medical Marijuana is not the big issue. It is recreational use. Just why do you think we have seen the recent land grabs is California. It is not to grow potatoes.
Explain why “the recent land grabs is California” are an “issue”?
Read the comment section. There is the answer.
Never mind, then.
I have from the beginning always felt that retail sales of cannabis in Benicia would pass very easily. At present I would say 4/1. I have also said there are many issue that must be looked at. Such as: commercial cultivation/production, cannabis testing facilities, indoor vs outdoor, 600 ft. from schools, 500 ft. from parks, Retail sales location and other questions. The survey asked those questions. I also believe the survey provided those answers. Debating the survey on this run gets us no where. All those questions can be and should be asked at the Council meeting on Aug. 15. Show up and ask those questions plus any other concerns. Pointing fingers at those who appear to be against retail sales in Benicia with a cavalier approach does not get you the answers. It just creates a war of words. I also think Greg providing that article was very helpful.; Regardless of what side your on about retail sales does not make you the enemy. I assume all the commenters live in Benicia. This is our city and we should be concerned about health and safety issues. It is not just a simple yes or4 no. When this pass’ there will still be unintended consequences that can be corrected but I do hope we look first, act first and then move forward. This is a very important issue. I do not care what any other city does. My concern is only Benicia. I live here and want a very thorough concerned approach to this issue. I hope all of you show up at the council meeting and voice your concerns.,