On Nov. 1, just as it had played out in a previous hearing, the board voted 4-1, with 3rd District Supervisor Doreen Farr again opposing, to approve an all-out ban on new medical marijuana storefronts in unincorporated territory.
But the latest development came without the contention of previous hearings on the issue, during which a number of medical marijuana access supporters publicly asked for government restraint and law enforcement officials warned of the perils that befall a community once a storefront opens.
The new ordinance was quickly ratified following a short plea from medical marijuana patients. County resident Dee Wingo, sporting a white T-shirt reading, “I Am Not a Criminal,” called on the board to allow a service she said has been protected by California voters.
“At one time or another, I voted for each of you to represent me and my interests,” Wingo said. “The people of California have voted that they see medicinal marijuana as a viable alternative to many ailments.”
Wingo recounted her own struggle with obesity and depression, telling the board that she was forced to seek a regimen of blood pressure medications and antidepressants. Medical marijuana, she said, helped her lose 40 pounds and wean herself off the antidepressants.
“I know that doesn’t fit with the stereotypical lazy, stoney person,” Wingo said. “But whether or not it’s a benefit to me—or how anyone feels personally [about what] it is—the law is the law and the voters have spoken. No access is not safe access.
“The law that we the people voted for also has alternatives to storefronts, and that is patient-to-patient direct, given for fair reimbursement for medicine,” she continued. “Is that the way you want it to be handled in this community? Because that is exactly what happens when you close down the storefronts—
you take it out of your hands.”
Taking the issue out of the hands of authorities and the community at large was precisely the issue for Farr. When the ban was proposed at the board’s Oct. 4 meeting, Farr said the then-existing county staff proposal would have kept the normal procedure in place while allowing residents to have their say.
“Now we won’t have that opportunity—and the public won’t have that opportunity—to continue a discussion on a controversial issue,” Farr said. “I’ve always felt very strongly that it was my job to encourage public discussion on land-use issues, particularly when they’re controversial, as this is, and not to muzzle it.”
Farr also said the decision could set a precedent for county land use issues.
“As far as I know, the county has never banned a land use before that appears to be legal in [the] state,” she said. “We may have many different land uses that are difficult to site and difficult to enforce, but we haven’t banned those, and I hope that this is not the start to a slippery slope.”
The only other supervisor to speak on the issue was 2nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf, who said that while she doesn’t dispute the medical need for marijuana, the storefronts hold “implications.”
“The matter is that folks who need medical marijuana can obtain it,” Wolf said, referring to the two remaining storefronts in Summerland, existing ones in the city of Santa Barbara, and non-storefront patient collectives.
“Part of my decision was based on the fact that anyone who reads the newspaper knew that this was coming. And I think it would have been irresponsible for me to move forward when I knew it was in conflict with the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” she explained. “So it’s not a perfect solution, but I feel confident in moving forward.”
The county’s ban comes on the heels of a very public campaign launched against dispensaries by California’s four federal prosecutors on Oct. 6, which has forced a large number of locations to close across the state. The supervisors have stated in the past that they wish to avoid such federal attention in Santa Barbara County.
The ban would affect new proposals only, and not the two existing dispensaries in Summerland.
This article appears in Nov 10-17, 2011.