Cannabis: Too many unanswered questions
I had the opportunity to attend the Feb. 6 Benicia City Council meeting. I was an instructor for 37 years. I have been a small-business owner in Benicia for the last 14 years and a resident for the past eight. I attended so I could be apprised on the cannabis issue, which I have tried to follow over the past year. It is now nearing completion with the City Council and in its final writing. The issue of cannabis has sparked a great division among residents and businesses. It is very apparent the majority of this City Council is for the adoption and swift implementation of cannabis in Benicia. This move doesn’t seem to be prudent, especially with so many unanswered questions apparent. There have been many issues which have come before these councilmembers, although none which seem to have created a division amongst residents and councilmembers such as this. It appears this cannabis issue will be the legacy for this group of councilmembers.
At this meeting, the councilmembers gave a presentation which was supposedly based on what the members had formulated and voted on over the past year. This accumulation of criteria was to be our governing documents on the cannabis issues. My understanding was this meeting was to be the first vote. However, during this meeting, I witnessed councilmembers lacking knowledge of items that were voted on over the past year, disapproval from a member suggesting there was minimum allowable addresses to become dispensary-approved, another member didn’t like the land designation as it was “confusing,” and several members were debating the terminology of what “micro” meant in regards to canabis businesses. I thought the biggst revelation was when a discussion was introduced regarding the liability and decisions surrounding a federally banned substance when presented. This added another dimension to an already complicated cannabis issue in Benicia and the personal liability of each councilmember if allowed.
Cannabis may be forced upon the residents and businesses of Benicia, but it appears that in the haste even amongst councilmembers, there is still great division on this issue. I would hope the councilmembers, as representatives of our city, would recognize the importance of their positions as well as the responsibilities of leadership and forethought needed for this issue in stepping back and realizing there seem to be too many unanswered questions.
Stewart Hall,
Benicia
Personal cultivation
The recent draft ordinance regulating cannabis activity in our town included rules for personal cultivation. Personal cultivation of up to six plants indoors is now guaranteed by state law. Local authorities can reasonably regulate cultivation by adults. Our City Council has approved the draft ordinance for personal cultivation both indoors and outdoors, but the vote was not unanimous. It should have been unanimous because it upholds our rights under state law. Maybe the vote on personal cultivation will be unanimous at the final reading, as it should be.
Stan Golovich,
Benicia
Sharing is caring!
The Executive Summary of the staff report for the next meeting indicates the city council decided to allow personal cultivation. They had no choice under state law but to “reasonably regulate” at minimum indoor cultivation of up to six plants (“…city or county shall not completely prohibit…”). Anyone that voted NO on personal cultivation is either under-informed on the law or just doesn’t care what the law says. We know we had one unwavering Rejector, but the sudden shift of another caught a lot of us by surprise. In a hypothetical situation, had there been three votes to prohibit personal cultivation, we would have received a nastygram from the state AG about the law. The glaring hypocrisy of the vote on personal cultivation is that one of the NO votes recently expressed dismay at the selective adherence to law.
Proposition 215 was all about cannabis as medicine, and the right of benefactors of its medicinal efficacy to grow their own and/or acquire it safely. The NO votes on personal cultivation alienated every patient and supporter of cannabis as medicine, including thousands of supporters of Proposition 64. The only reason I can think of why anyone in office would continue to reject regulated cannabis in Benicia is that they are serving their last term. From Tuesday on, anyone in office or a candidate for office will be eyed with suspicion by voters if you flip on regulated cannabis. The added tax vote will probably be pushed to November, so anyone on the ballot pro-cannabis will have quite an advantage. If you are running as a Rejector carrying the community virtues banner, what will you profess to represent? Stopping regulated cannabis? Keeping “it” off First Street? Will you be against the tax as well during your campaign? It will be interesting to see who if anyone writes an “Argument Against” the added tax. I predict the tax will pass at 80% or better. Everybody wants the money. It’s that simple.
From what I understand cultivation has to be like a hot house. COVERED. On the tax it will pass and there very well could be two bills. One for cannabis sales tax of 10% on retail cannabis and the other a excise tax of 10% for non retail cannabis. Both the sales tax and excise tax will cap at 10% with the council able to adjust down without going to the voters again. I would say both taxes will be set at about 3/5%. There will not be any major revenue from cannabis. All surrounding areas are now lowering their retail/wholesale taxes to about 3/5%. As far as voters are concerned a anti retail recreational candidate has a huge advantage. All you had to do was listen to the folks that spoke. Educators, parents and many residence/voters. They will remember. We will not see a retail recreational cannabis store in Benicia until about November of 2018 or even into 2019. The campaign will not be on cannabis it will be on the financial health of the city and the water and sewer rates. The city is facing a huge financial issue. When the council starts talking about service cuts and out sourcing/contracting services such as police. fire. park and rec, etc. the residents will go berserk. Cannabis will not even be an issue.
Hall states that “Cannabis may be forced upon the residents and businesses of Benicia”. I would be curious if Hall believes at any and all businesses, such as the tattoo parlor or numerous bars on first street also equate to having their products “forced” on residents. Remember, nothing the council decides on has anything to do with cannabis use. No matter the outcome, literally anyone can smoke cannabis in Benicia, and already, plenty of people are.
B.B, Do you mean to say that nobody will be subject to mandated cannabis use?
I do! It would seem that some fear that the high school will start passing out pot brownies and the police will be chasing people down for their mandatory, State Sponsored Bong Rips, but it may suprise some that in reality, all that will occur is regular, everyday people will be able to enjoy the benefits, either medically, or just recreationally, of using cannabis in their own homes. It’s almost like freedom!
Seems pragmatic to me.
Agreed! People should be free to experiment any way they want.
But … as a non-user, I don’t want to pay for others problems; health issues, criminal activity, public intoxication.
People should be free, but with freedom comes responsibilities.
Also, the alleged tax revenue windfall that many proclaim, i do not buy. Pot is legal, but other than medicinal benefits and getting high, there won’t be any further advantages.
Matter, The only time I’ve paid for somebody’s “public intoxication”, is when I picked up their bar tab. You know what I’m sayin?
Increased police expenditures for handling public intoxication. Increased medical expenses to handle increased demand due to drug use. Criminal incarceration expenses due to associated crimes due to public intoxication. Auto insurance increases due to driving under the influence and resulting accidents.
Need I go on? There is no such thing as a harmless intoxicant. There will be costs. One cannot simply state “go ahead. It’s your life. It has no impact on me.”
As long as we have the nanny state mentality, the Libertarian model does not hold. There will be costs to society and we will pay that tab.
“Public intoxication”, “medical expenses”, etc. – Are you talking about marijuana, or something else? Because, for one thing, as far as the results of public intoxication from marijuana, I don’t think eating too many Cheetos, or listening too much Grateful Dead, is a valid charge. Although, I’d argue that the latter should be fully punishable by law.
Just piling onto already established bad habits. Bottom line is there will be added costs.
As well as diminished costs.
Diminished costs?
Yes. Less costs in law enforcement, less in judicial system cost, less in cost for incarceration.
I mean, sure. If we wanted to reduce the public costs of consumption, we would want to outlaw alcohol, fast food, cigarettes, doughnuts, energy drinks, cell phones, and any other luxury that people use that sacrifices health or safety.
Part of the reason I didn’t mention tax is because 1: I don’t have data on hand to support one way or another, and 2: I don’t believe it should be a factor. Even if it makes a net zero profit, I would rather not have needless red tape on people’s choices, especially when those choices are much less dangerous than others people regularly enjoy.
Yes, people have choices. When developing a family friendly city like Benicia. There are some things that can take an image down quickly. Ever notice we do not have porn shops, topless dancing. We do not. Small cities like Benicia can be quickly identified by what its commercial varieties are. This very fine city has worked a very long time to change its image. It has worked very well. So as we may all see I do not believe we are asking folks to change their personal habits. In this case recreational cannabis. You will be able to buy it in town by no sooner than by late 2018 or early 2019. You can then go home and consume as you please. No need to advertise to the world that you are a pot user. You cannot consume it in a bar, public place, in your car, on public sidewalks etc. So just go purchase your product and go home and use it. No one really cares. I question if any recreational cannabis store will be very successful. Could well be the cost and area where it can go will make it not a very attractive investment nor is Benicia the place to start that type of business. We cannot even get a Trader Joe’/s, Whole Foods, In-and Out , Five guys, Panera and many others. I do like the three new places on First Street that will open in 2018. It appears all are privately owned and will enhance variety and choices. Will add to the family friendly city. I like that.
We had one flip on the new ordinance specific to personal cultivation guaranteed by state law, in fact citing the LAW as reason for the flip. So it was 4-1 on personal cultivation. It does bother me that we have elected officials that arbitrarily choose not to respect laws, because where does that go?