The real public safety issue
At a recent City Council meeting, an elected official reaffirmed disapproval of storefront cannabis dispensaries, citing public safety concerns. I can find no credible evidence to sustain a view that crime goes up when cannabis dispensaries are introduced in a neighborhood. To the contrary, many notable sources, including the FBI, have observed crime trends around dispensaries to be unremarkable, and in many cases have gone down, most likely due to the heavy security precautions these places are noted for. Cameras (some linked to local PD as extra eyes), outside security personnel, lighting, and especially consumer foot traffic (witnesses with camera phones) appear to be an efficient protocol to deter crime in the area.
I was pleased to hear Councilman Schwartzman clearly understands this concept and the benefits of cannabis dispensaries in retail areas, instead of hidden away in the Industrial Park. If we are going to welcome the cannabis industry as tenants for commercial operations in the Industrial Park, we should not do it with our nose in the air by telling them to “just stay out there” with regard to storefront operations.
I am more concerned about public safety issues related to banking operations in Benicia. I can recall six bank robberies in recent years, with one getting robbed twice within six months.
Stan Golovich,
Benicia
Air District needs to cap refinery emissions
I appreciated the Benicia Herald’s April 20 reprint of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) press release, “Air District Board adopts ‘Spare the Air, Cool the Climate’ plan.” The article notes numerous excellent and ambitious goals in the District’s blueprint for tackling air and climate pollutants.
Here in our refinery town, it is notable that the Air District’s press release does not mention several newsworthy steps in strengthening controls on pollution caused by oil refineries in the East Bay. As reported in the SF Chronicle, “Under the plan, the [BAAQMD] will use its unilateral authority to tighten emission rules for oil refineries in the East Bay. Alongside cars and trucks, industry is the region’s top source of pollution.”
The plan is 247 pages long and calls for 85 measures to protect the air we breathe and the Earth (http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/plans-under-development). The plan goes well beyond the small but important steps you and I can take in our own lives. It includes over 100 references to refineries, going into detailed stricter controls, greater monitoring for methane leaks at refineries, reductions in flaring to limit gas emissions, etc.
Local Benicia environmental advocates have joined with others throughout the Bay Area to urge the BAAQMD to take strong action in capping refinery emissions. Readers can learn more about Rule 12–16, which would cap facility-wide emissions of greenhouse gases and other harmful pollutants at current levels, at the Sierra Club’s website, http://sierraclub.org/san-francisco-bay/refineryrules. The Air District is scheduled to address Rule 12-16 in a May 2017 vote.
Roger Straw,
Benicia
Congratulations to Benicia schools
It is with great pride that I learned six Solano County schools were selected for 2017’s California Gold Ribbon recognition. This is a major achievement for each of the schools designated by the California Department of Education to be examples of educational quality with the implementation of academic content including activities, projects, strategies, and practices for all pupils, including English learners.
Congratulations to Benicia High School and Benicia Middle School for being selected. As a teacher for 39 years I know what excellent teaching, learning and collaborating this kind of award takes. This is a great achievement for the students, teachers and staff. I am very proud of the Benicia schools!
Monica Brown;
Solano County Board of Supervisors, District 2
Sharing is caring!
I oppose Cannabis in areas other than the Industrial Park. At that point we should also poll the Industrial Park business’ for their feelings. At the same time poll all business’ not in the Industrial Park also. Mainly First Street, Solano Square, Raley’s and others. They will tell the residence how they feel. We do not want legal card rooms, legal porn shops and now you want legal cannabis retail. Very confused on that. Also a full report from our very fine Police Chief on their feelings and need for any additional police protection. Banks do hire in many cases their own protection. No on Cannabis retail other than the Industrial Park and only if they are ion favor of it. Let the residents decide.
Do you also hope that we outlaw substances like alcohol from being sold on First Street? Or is there a reason why that’s just fine?
No. We just do not need another problem. Do you want a Cannabis Store on First Street?
Another problem? What’s the problem?
I think if someone wants to open a business, they should be able to. Let the consumers make the decision. Letting the government choose who can open a business where is just Socialist Progressive Ideals.
Alcohol. I do not mind that you steal my “Socialist Progressive Ideals”. But at the same time try to open a card room or a porno store in Benicia. Try opening a big box store in Benicia. You cannot. The city of Benicia will decide if a Cannabis store in certain area fits the image of the City. That is not Socialist Progressive Ideals that’s City life style and image. Take a look at Danville and see what they will do with Cannabis stores.
Danville is amending their all-out prohibition to allow indoor cultivation of up to six plants. They plan to re-visit the ban on delivery of cannabis, as they recognize Prop. 215 patients in Danville are having to travel to Martinez or Vallejo to get it. Rumor has it there is delivery going on anyway.
So, you admit alcohol is a problem, but lack the consistancy to hold both by equal review? Do you drink, Bob?
Sure, let the city decide. Allow the businesses to open wherever, and allow the invisible hand of capitalism work. Of the city of Benicia truely rejects it, they won’t make money, and will shut down. Do you believe capitalism is a bad system, Bob?
Yes I drink. I love capitalism. It is not a question of equal review it is a question is do we really need it. Your idea of letting business open where ever they want never works. All city’s have planning commissions, love them or hate them they try to follow the city general plan. Capitalism has and can work by following the general plan. There also can be amendments to the general plan. This whole Cannabis issue is not only about money but what folks want in their city. You can always vote for Cannabis and also say not in my backyard. I do not want Cannabis retail in the main retail areas. I could live with it in the Industrial Park but at the same the Industrial Park business must have a say. I do believe you may have a divided council on this issue. The police department must also have a say or guidance. It is not as easy as you say. If that was the case someone could put a horse farm at the end of First Street. Is that what you really want.
Can the horse farm set up a proper area, that is safe, and has enough space? Sure, go ahead. It will go out of business before a year is out, since there’s no market for horses in Benicia.
I don’t believe you love capitalism at all. You enjoy it when it benefits you, so tou can whine and cry when other people have businesses they dislike, like coal and refineries. As soon as it’s something you don’t like, suddenly the government needs to step in.
The police can have a stance when the law prohibits cannabis. At the start of 2018, that will not be the case. The opinion of Law Enforcement does not matter, it is the duty of those groups to follow the law, regardless of personal stock.
You offer zero evidence of any real reason to bar cannabis companies. No evidence of crime increase, money loss, or any other real concerns. All you have are your own feelings, and if you want rules made off of your feelings, I suggest you accept that you’re really just another liberal crybaby who demands a safe space because you don’t like when others mind their own business.
I am not a Liberal. I have been a Republican all my life. First President I voted for was IKE. Never have voted for a Democrat in a partisan election. You know nothing about me. Pure Capitalist. You appear not to like me and will make any excuse to try and put me down. At least I use my name. You do not. What is your name.
There’s the deflection. Refusal to answer the root of the question, “Why is cannabis not permittable, but alcohol is”, and instead a focus on irrelevant details.
If you dislike your name being used, I can call you Owl. That way we both have clearly fictitious names. For the sake of privacy and security, however, that’s all you get.
I have no problem with you personally. It just so happens that, when it comes to those who hurl insults, look for arguments, and parade personal opinion with no evidence, you come to the top of the list. If you could provide realistic data, showing that cannabis is a dangerous thing to sell, so much that liquor stores and smoke shops (Which sell pipes and bongs in Benicia, by the way.) are 100% okay, I will concede. However, if you defend your opinion with “I don’t like it, therefore it shouldn’t be legal”, well… I would wonder how that makes you any different from the progessive, crybaby liberals you love to call out so much.
It’s very simple. Provide one, verifiable piece of evidence supporting your opinion. Not “Look at city X” or “I’ve personally seen Y”, but a study or census supporting your opinion, and I will apologize fully.
I believe any image problems with cannabis are dominated by the traditional ones of huge spliffs and equally huge clouds of smoke. Smoking the bud is the crudest form of medicine delivery and leads to respiratory issues. I was researching the cannabis policy in Martinez and found these two interesting items about it. Notice the City Manager quote, they want to help people grow it safely indoors. We should adopt the same policy to assure public safety, but when the city employee comes to your house and your neighbors know you aren’t adding a room, it could lead to patient privacy issues. This would have to be a discreet third party service, in my opinion, maybe use retired city building inspector, for example.
https://tinyurl.com/l8pf9d4
Here are the rules in Martinez. I found it interesting that they limit sale of bud to 1/8 of an ounce, more than enough for a single person’s daily use. This is an excellent approach to deny illegal re-sellers from buying larger quantities and breaking it down into gram street bags.
We could consider banning sale of bud in the name of public health, but allow edibles, tinctures, topicals, and other concentrates that do not require inhaling vegetable matter with medicine on the surface.
I believe this is a very sophisticated approach to making cannabis available locally and may help the image issue. We have shops dedicated to providing a known killer substance to the public, complete with a warning from the Surgeon General, and alcohol sales establishments, both blaring ads in the windows. Comparatively, the image of a regulated “smokeless” cannabis storefront in Southampton or on First Street rises well above the first two, in my opinion.
https://tinyurl.com/kkfw3ne
,
To clarify, 1/8 of an ounce is more than enough for “recreational” use. Medical consumers can get more from a delivery service.
Stan, “We could consider banning sale of bud in the name of public health,” I believe that the use of bud, or the choice to consume edibles, should be a personal matter, regardless of medical or recreational use.
I also agree with you that alcohol is an exponentially greater concern when it comes to public health.
The BAAQMD is trying to put the refineries out of business and at the same time control your life style. That is pure Socialist Progressive Ideals. I want no part of it. Cars, truck and buses cause more emission issues than the refinery’s do. California has done a good job on that and will continue to do so. Roger Straw fails to tell you who wrote rule 12-16. Tell the residents Roger. Fossil fuel will live on for many years. Science and Silicon Valley can reduce the emissions much more than this rule. No on Rule 12-16. Your life styles and personal freedoms are being attacked with this rule.
The residents have already indicated approval of “recreational” cannabis back in November, by percentages exceedingly greater than vote tallies at the state and county levels. It is not unrealistic to presume that an even larger percentage approve of “medical” cannabis. Therefore, the residents have a reasonable expectation to have cannabis available locally, in my opinion, and in main stream commercial areas, not hidden out in the Industrial Park. I believe the Chief will advise against locating storefront cannabis in the Industrial Park. There is abundant data available indicating the presence of cannabis storefronts in commercial areas does not lead to an increase in crime. There will be no need for additional police protection.
The cannabis issue in Benicia reminds me of the “tattoo wars” of a few years ago, when some people did not want the presence of a “tattoo parlor” on First Street, concerned about “image”, I guess. Ironically, Bombshell Hair and Ink is still standing while several other First Street businesses on the main line have come and gone. I respect that about a third of Benicia voters did not support Prop. 64 or want “that sh-t” sold in town, but the times are changing, and quickly. Vice-Mayor Young and Councilman Schwartzman appear to be doing their homework on cannabis issues, and both have made comments related to observation of no increase in crime in cities with cannabis storefronts. VM Young made comments to the effect that “medical” and “recreational” cannabis are essentially merging going forward. I believe the state will adopt a “merged market” model, where cannabis is sold to consumers under the two qualifying standards, and product labeling indicating both for any packaged product. This model would be easier to regulate, in my opinion,
Despite increasing public awareness and education about whole plant cannabis as medicine, fiber, food, and fuel, some will still reject “pot shops” in Benicia, anywhere, but I believe the greater Benicia community is ready to welcome “cannabis shoppes” to main stream commercial areas. Using the thousand foot standoff rule, I found that the storefronts in Southampton Center and First Street locations south of F Street are not in conflict with this rule. As I see it, we only need two places to buy regulated cannabis products. No armed security either. Still hoping city officials will start using “cannabis” instead of “marijuana”.
Here is interesting reading about the Drug Enforcement Agency having to remove cannabis misinformation from their web site, but they refuse to budge on their view that cannabis has no medicinal value.
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/iqa_victory
Stan what is the estimated share of sales tax for Benicia on Cannabis sales. Excluding excise tax or other license fees.
There has been no estimate made by staff yet because there is no direction from council as to how many and what types of cannabusinesses we will regulate. There’s a full platter of potential business operations that precede the point of sale. I believe the presentation to the stakeholders group from HdL Companies may provide some insight as to revenue potential.
Thank you for using “cannabis” instead of that filthy other word.
People who live in Stepford probably need to be high.
I’m thinking that if there are any upcoming retail vacancies at Solano Square and/or South Hampton, those would be convenient locations for the inevitable cannabis cafe/lounge.
Well Mr. Petersen try the old Kentucky Fried Chicken place. I can just see yoiu getting a free high just walking by. It does not belong there or any other retail complex. At best the industrial park or no where. You can go to other towns and get your Cannabis or have all your friends grow the 5/6 legal plants. This a very silly story. Cannabis out in the open for every child to see. What would your daughters think Mr. Petersen. Would they approve of you smoking Cannabis in front of the friends or better yet other kids parents. It a nasty dirty habit that is not needed. I am not saying you are a smoker. You will have to tell us. I am not and have never been and will never be a Cannabis smoker or as I call it weed.
None-the less, retail spaces at Solano Square and/or South Hampton will make for very coveniant locations for cannabis cafes/lounges. It will be very easy.
B B. One of the problems with providing data is it is far to soon to have any meaningful data. It will take a number of years. But Colorado and surrounding states have noticed an up tick on some crime related issues in their states. Crossing over to Colorado to buy Cannabis. That is not even note worthy because of the lack of current data. So for me to provide data at present is impossible. I also understand the down side of alcohol and tobacco. By the way “THE OWL” is just an added name. You know my name is Bob Livesay. I have the same privacy issues as anyone but do not mind putting my name out on comments or articles that I write. I have a strong feeling that all folks should identify themselves or do not comment. That is just my opinion. No name do not comment. I have never said I disliked my name being used. Use it all you want. If you have read any of my over 300 article you will find out that I do back up my comments with facts. Very few times opinions. But many times by ones own actions which are facts. I still am not convinced that retail options on Cannabis are necessary. I will stick to that and you cannot convince me other wise. No one smokes in my car or house. My privilege and I stick to it. By the way you have not provided any data why this city should retail Cannabis. Both sides.
Colorado and all the other states that decriminalized cannabis are indicating growing downward pressure on opioid-related problems. Same with crime in dispensary areas, and dark market sales. There is an abundance of reference material to choose from multiple studies indicating no worse than “unchanged”. Given you approve of cannabis storefronts in the Industrial Park, how would you frame an argument against having them in main stream retail areas? What is different by the two locations? I believe the Police Chief will tell you the lesser risk of a crime event is to have cannabis storefronts in busy retail areas as opposed to an island out of town basically.
Stan, You are correct. First street would be a great location. Anyone that has ever been to Amsterdam knows that retail locations (cafes, lounges, etc.) are right in the thick of it, and are pretty classy places, to boot.
This is Benicia. What happens in Amsterdam is of no importance. This is America and yes we are different. That is why many folks want to come to America. Land of opportunity.
I disagree. What about the first stock market?
what about it.
I’m questioning the claim you made in your previous comment. I do not think it is correct.
Explain
Very simple. Re-read your comment. You are the one that made it. It should not be up to me to explain your comment to you.
You mean every one wants to come to America. Where have you been. Yrs many American Socialist love the EU model of Socialism but are not departing in droves. Is that what you wanted?
No. Not what I meant.
what did you mean. It should be easy. please explain and I will try to answer. thank You.
I think inside the historic Tannery Building would be a great location.
My thoughts exactly.
I have no idea if “Bob Livesay” is an alias of not. I can tell you my full name is Barron Brooks, But really, how can you know that I’m being legitimate? Ultimately, it doesn’t really count for anything.
Now, if you’re going to state that there’s been an uptick in crimes related to cannabis, you really should provide evidence. That should be easily verified, if you have that information.
In the meantime, I would offer this as reference:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/5tabledatadecpdf/table_5_crime_in_the_united_states_by_state_2013.xls
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-5
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-5
Since 2013, neither Colorado nor Washington have any statistical abnormalities since their legalization of cannabis. Certainly, Colorado has had an increase in property crime, larceny, and car theft, but the year before, had a decrease in all these, as well as a consistant decrease in burglary. For Washington, all crimes of these types have had onle decreased rates since legalization.
However, as you state, not only do you refuse to examine an opposing viewpoint, you don’t believe there is enough time for good data. That’s fine. I would ask, then, how it’s a Conservative stance that, when we do not know much about something, our knee jerk reaction should be government regulation. Nobody is forcing you to use cannabis, if it is sold. Likewise, should we ban gun sales, since we don’t have enough data about them? After all, the NRA lobbied hard to ban the CDC from even studying the science of gun violence for over 10 years.
It’s this position that makes me feel, personally, you are very liberal in terms of political feelings. Why not allow people to do as they wish, buy and sell freely, unless we have concrete data suggesting that it’s dangerous?
My opinion is my opinion. You may have another opinion. I have for over sixty years felt that Cannabis was not a necessary addition to the problem we have with alcohol . We have plenty of stats on alcohol. Do we really need another problem. My opinion is no. I do believe Stan is being very reasonable on this issue. Do you want all the card rooms in Benicia back in business? Do you want porn shops on First Street? I hope you do not. Maybe it has to do with if someone is a pot smoker. Maybe ,that is the real issue. I am not. So that is how I see it. We all have opinions and I do respect that. Please respect my opinion. Well BB privacy appears is not the issue. Remember I do respect your opinion. I also believe retail Cannabis will be passed by the city council. Does that mean if a council member votes no they are out of touch. No it means the image of the city is at risk. Just my opinion. You may want to look up the past history of First Street. Do you want that back also? I will ;provide stats also. Give me a little time. Believe me I do understand your point. I just do not agree.
Certainly, you are free to not want to use cannabis. That’s a perfectly fine opinion. I would hope, hoewever, that you wouldn’t allow your personal use influence the way you vote as a member of America and California. Freedom is paramount, and others getting to use and have things I don’t like is vital to freedom.
Let me start with unintended consequences taking place in Colorado. 1-25/40% DUI drug arrests involve marijuana. 2-Marijuana-related traffic deaths up by 154% between 2006/2014., 3-Emergency room visits related to marijuana increased by 77%. 4-13% of youths ages 12 to 17 said they used marijuana in the past month 2013/14 compared to8% in 2005/06.; Increase of 63%. 5- Drug related suspensions/expulsions increased 40% 2008/2009 to 2013/14. 6-Since 2012, the year Colorado voters passed recreational marijuana the number of crimes in Denver has grown about 44% according to the National Incident Based Reporting System. 7-At least 70% of the municipalities in Colorado have banned commercial operations, either by popular vote or board decisions. 8- Marijuasna smoke contains 50-70 % more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. These data points are sourced from various studies and reports. Look them up.
“Marijuana-related traffic deaths up by 154% between 2006/2014” – The data makes it impossible to know for sure how many of the documented incidents were directly caused by marijuana use. Unlike alcohol, for example, testing positive for marijuana doesn’t necessarily mean a person is under the influence of the drug at the time of the traffic accident.
“Emergency room visits related to marijuana increased by 77%” Since it is next to impossible to overdose on Marijuana, it would be interesting to see what these “emergency room visits” are all about.
“13% of youths ages 12 to 17 said they used marijuana in the past month 2013/14 compared to8% in 2005/06” A survey, by the federal government in 2016 estimated that the percent of kids ages 12 to 17 in Colorado who used marijuana in a given month was the highest in the country. But that same survey concluded the rate was flat since recreational marijuana stores opened — something echoed this by the state Health Department’s Healthy Kids Colorado Survey. The percentage of Colorado kids who reported using marijuana in the previous year actually declined in the federal government’s survey in 2014.
“Drug related suspensions/expulsions increased 40% 2008/2009 to 2013/14” Not specific to marijuana.
“Since 2012, the year Colorado voters passed recreational marijuana the number of crimes in Denver has grown about 44%” How does this correlate to legalization of marijuana?
“Marijuasna smoke contains 50-70 % more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke” However, marijuana smokers typically inhale a small fraction of the amount of smoke compared to a tobacco smoker. The vaping alternative also reduces the production/amount of PAHs due to the lower temperature.
Here is an informative article about the relationship of cannabis smoking to lung cancer.
https://tinyurl.com/nsd2k
Thanks Stan.
That is what the article is all about. I assume you understand.
I believe the problem is related to accidental excessive dosing of edibles. These take a good half hour to an hour to metabolize through the liver. Here is an informative piece on the subject. I believe the cannabis-related emergency room visits will go down over time as consumers become educated on edibles dosing.
https://tinyurl.com/kxuhysv
I new I would get anti comments on this. So be it. Now prove I am wrong. It is not as sweet and rosey as you say. I have no problem defending your choice of substance.. But do not put down others who may not agree with you just prove I am wrong…
Pot is now legal in CA. Will of the people. Move on.
We can tax the sale of the substance. Bingo.
We can raise taxes on gasoline. Bingo.
We can raise taxes on water. Bingo.
We can raise taxes on income. Bingo.
We can float bond measures when we are scared to raise taxes. Bingo.
Pot isn’t going to destroy this state. Tax raising politicians are going to destroy this state.
Pretty soon we will all be working for the state of CA. Working until 50, then drawing six figure incomes with COLA’s and benefits until death. It’s all good! And if we run out of money funding the Ponzi Game, all we have to do is raise taxes! Endless supply of money!
But no worries … we’ll all be stoned anyway.
That was a good comment.