(Editor’s note: This column was published in two parts in the print edition for spatial reasons. It is being posted here in its entirety.)
I was disappointed that all but one member of our City Council voted to allow marijuana to be legally grown, cultivated, processed and commercially sold in our little town beginning sometime in 2018. A great number of speakers presented or submitted very compelling arguments against such a decision including leaders of our schools, businesses and churches. Those arguments apparently fell on four deaf ears. One of life’s axioms postulates, “Most people, given the same information, come to the same conclusion, unless they are working an agenda.” Well, our council majority is working an agenda and they could care less what the public says. They continue to be hell-bent to become a first adopter of recreational marijuana sales in this area. Their sole goal of this action is to hopefully raise enough revenue from licensing and sales of the product to balance our city’s ever declining unbalanced budget.
Only one of the supporters of adopting this proposal had the courage to publically state his rationale for voting to support recreational marijuana. That person was Vice Mayor Steve Young, and I commend him for sharing his thoughts. I’ve never met Mr. Young so I do not want to disparage him as a person but I do take issue with some of the rationalizations he stated as reasons to support this issue. I will list his rationale and my position on each one.
* “He acknowledged that marijuana was damaging to the health and development of young people, but stressed that the new law applies to adults, not children.” (Vallejo Times-Herald, Dec. 22, 2017)
— On Aug.14, I provided each councilmember several reports citing the health risk to adults including but not limited to cancer, unrelenting vomiting, dangerous increase in heart rate, hallucinations, panic attacks, extended psychosis, difficulty in breathing. In addition, on Oct. 29, I shared a report indicating a significant increase in traffic accidents (48 percent) and death (62 percent) in Colorado where marijuana was present. I regard injury, dismemberment and death to be directly related to an individual’s personal health.
* He cites Vallejo “have not had a measurable increase in crime as a result of their dispensaries, an assertion he said that the mayor of Vallejo has backed up.”
— I don’t want to be snarky about this but why on earth would anyone solicit input from a city that has the highest crime rate in Solano County and the fifth highest crime rate in California cities of 30,000 or more? How on earth would they know if there were impacts to crime with the introduction of medical marijuana? Moreover, if that was true, why did they not approve recreational marijuana?
* He asked the city manager to instruct HDL to provide a more thorough background to support its estimates (of cost/revenue) which will then be passed to the public.
— So let’s assume that HDL made a gross error in their estimates. So what? One cannot un-ring a bell nor can one easily reverse a council decision. The clear answer here was that the study should have been validated and re-validated before a vote of the council.
* On federal intervention he cites the Obama administration memorandum regarding states that have legalized cannabis will not be pursued.
–On Nov. 30, I provided to the council comprehensive evidence that there were clear requirements to avoid federal intervention mainly regarding a requirement in the Obama memorandum that marijuana not be transported outside of California. I also provided evidence that California marijuana growth exceeded usage by some 11 million pounds of marijuana per year most of which is being transported illegally outside of California. It is only a matter of time for the Feds to enforce the illegal exportation to other states violation by shutting down California’s recreational marijuana laws.
* Young cites the self-selecting survey the city conducted in which the majority of people polled (responded) agreed to allow cannabis business in town.
— I not only participated in this survey, I voted a number of times. After voting, I contacted the company conducting the survey and confessed I had used a number of emails to pass multiple votes. Only after my confession did I receive a notice that my multiple votes had been erased. I seriously doubt they would have been rejected if I had not notified them. Considering that there were less than 750 votes made by who knows how few people in a city of 28,000, I advised the council of these facts which should have put the survey in total doubt as to its veracity.
* He agrees with Councilman Mark Hughes’ position that the passage of Proposition 64 did not specifically mean support for dispensaries in Benicia.
— This is the one thing we totally agree on. However, if that was his belief, why didn’t Mr. Young join forces with Mr. Hughes and try to get the council to delay voting and/or place the question on the 2018 ballot to confirm once and for all if the public wants dispensaries et al in Benicia?
Benicia’s decision to be in a first adopter status comes with neither the talent nor resources– financial or technical– to be successful. Even Vallejo understood the level of commitment and financial resources required to successfully manage its way through the unknowns of allowing medical marijuana dispensaries. That knowledge and a series of long and expensive lawsuits led them to not approve the sale of recreational marijuana in Vallejo and to leave it to the citizens of Vallejo to decide in 2018 elections. No other city in Solano County is allowing recreational marijuana. When we look at Contra Costa County we find one city– Richmond– in that county is allowing recreational marijuana. Most cities were very clear that they wanted to delay any decision until they fully understood how implementation was handled by the state and large cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco.
So where are all of the people wanting to participate in using recreational marijuana going to get their product? Welcome to the world Benicia wishes to embrace. Benicia’s role as first adopter status will be to serve a large population in excess of 500,000 potential clients mostly from outside of Benicia. The stress and strain on the city’s resources especially its police will be daunting, if not overwhelming, if only 10 percent of that number come to Benicia to get their marijuana. I admire our police chief’s statement that he intends to focus on illegal growth and sale of marijuana outside of dispensaries. Well, good luck on that one because if we get the influx of people I predict we will, our small city is going to be rift with all types of people, good and bad, along with the associated maladies of society.
The next step in this road to disaster is for the city to finalize the ordinance that will be used to govern the who, what, why, when, where and how of regulating recreational marijuana. My first review of the ordinance resulted in me submitting a letter to the council and staff on Nov. 30 stating that it was an insult to the public to entitle the ordinance “Cannabis Public Safety Ordinance.” All ordinances, especially this one, should be descriptive. My suggested title was “Cannabis Business License Ordinance,” namely because that is what it is, and secondly because there is little to no evidence of it providing safety to the public in this ordinance.
Please take time to watch the council either in person or on the web if for no other reason than to thank the council for this unwanted lump of coal.
Dennis Lowry is a retired telecommunications executive and former chairman of the Benicia Finance, Budget and Audit Committee. He has been a Benicia resident since 1986.
Sharing is caring!
Very good Dennis. You are correct. Looking forward to your next part. You will get negative feedback from the pro cannabis folks and they will cite their own info. I happen to agree with yours. This issue is not over. The city could be in for a big surprise on revenue along with the financial issues of this very fine city. Stick with it Dennis your voice is needed. Thank you.
Sweet cannabis flower aromas will be all over our little town from summer into fall. Some will process their harvest into analgesic topicals and high potency edibles. Others will dry and cure for traditional combustion inhalation, a practice I do not encourage for health reasons, not to mention most popular strains are available in vape cartridges that allow a consumer to experience the full range of aroma and flavor. DO NOT monkey around with solvent extraction experiments! People that have cited “the smell” better get used to it, whether it be from second hand smoke or ripening flowers. The fact that cannabis products will be sold locally is moot since it is already a local consumer favorite, even among the friends of persistent ragers against regulated activity, and will be growing all over the city anyway.
It is important to reinforce previous commentary regarding “the smell” of cannabis. The aroma of ripening flowers does not contain psychoactive THC molecules, only the terpenes responsible for aroma and flavor characteristics. These vaporize at room temps while THC vaporizes at well over 300 degrees. There is some debate as too how much second hand smoke one has to inhale from burning cannabis in order to sense an effect, but basically, if you are far enough away and only detect it in the air, it is unlikely you will become euphoric, only annoyed by smelling it. I smell it all over town anyway on a balmy summer eve, especially on First Street. (A cultivator I know used to be a CAMP raider in Humboldt County. He said there was a lot of times when the guys burning piles of cannabis could hardly avoid inhaling smoke as the winds swirled. Then they would have to taken for a time out because they were laughing too hard to work)
Dennis the information you constantly disseminate is highly flawed, highly biased, and amounts to no more than scare tactics. Turn off the “Reefer Madness”. Give it up, you lost.
Please reference your comment.
Then just explain why cannabis will not win in 2018, how anyone made negative comments, and how there is any anger In the comments. If it is just your opinion and not fact based I would accept that. Come clean Robert.
Read the comments Thomas. Your own tells the whole story. Very negative. The voters have spoken on Cannabis and the council did not listen. I assume you are aware of that fact.; That is a fact.
I assume you know that yours is just an opinion. Wise up a bit. My comments are only negative to you because you don’t agree. Same old story.
My comments are based on facts. Sorry Thomas your comments are negative and very biased because you like pot. That is not a problem but please admit your preferences.
Sorry Bob, you are usually extremely light on facts, but heavy on being a contrarian. Plus you are biased because you like beer. That’s not a problem, but don’t be a hypocrite.
Thomas you are confused.
You would not know the difference.
Cannabis doesn’t kill people, people kill people. I’d rather adults take responsibility for their own choices, then demand safe spaces for people like the author who would rather have the government telling them how to live.
Dennis is not telling anyone how to live. Just a few pro cannabis folks are saying that, do not like another opinion. I think all of you will find out in the Dec. 2018 election who won. It will not be cannabis. His opinion/facts is just as valuable as any of yours. I am correct about the negative feedback. Three already posted, The usual suspects. Their negative comments are filled with anger.
Please reference your comment.
Then just explain why the writers comments are highly flawed, biased and amount to no more than scare tactics. If it is just your opinion and fact based I would accept that. Come clean Thomas.
Bye, Felicia.
Where did Felicia go? I liked her.
Dennis, would you support “M” license activity only pending a vote in 2018 on “A” license? That way, we would be just like Vallejo*. Also, the issue of cannabis activity on First Street could be decided on the same ballot, along with the added local tax and two council seats.
*Trusted Vallejo OGs tell me the “A” license stall until a 2018 vote buys time for home sales in an optics management exercise.
Benicia will see thousands of consumers visit for one purpose. All of them will have tens to hundreds of dollars to leave here, or maybe stop and shop somewhere else. I have mentioned many months ago that my only concerns about retail cannabis activity are in the area of crowd control, traffic, and parking. Our PD can adjust staffing accordingly, OT, whatever. I hope the safe in the Finance Department is big enough. You can be sure the MMDs and people of Vallejo will push for supporting “A” license activity on their 2018 ballot due to all the revenue leaking to Benicia. By then it will be too late. They will be charmed by our town forever. We have the high ground in Solano County cannabis economics.
Bet on the Roosmoor seniors to schedule regular shuttles to Benicia so their 500+ cannabis consumers can browse. They rely on delivery now.
THEY ARE MEDICAL USERS NOT RECREATIONAL USERS. THEY WILL NOT COME TO BENICIA. NO NEED TO WORRY THOSE BUS’ WILL NOT COME TO Benicia. AT BEST THEY WILL GO DOWN THE FREEWAY TO Berkeley.; I hope Stan you are there to greet them.
I do believe Stan you are confused and not very familiar with what actually will happen. It will be a DUD AND AG SESSIONS WILL MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS.
Sorry Bob, Sessions is in for a shocking surprise. He is way to old, as well as disconnected from reality.
Again just your opinion.
Sorry that you have such a hard time accepting facts.