Hesitant to get involved in the conflict between state and federal law, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors recently voted to move ahead with a ban on medical marijuana dispensaries.
On Oct. 4, the Board of Supervisors voted 4-1, with 3rd District Supervisor Doreen Farr dissenting, against an ordinance to regulate medical marijuana dispensaires, instead opting to draft a ban that would prevent additional facilities from operating on county land.
The county currently has a moratorium on dispensaries that has been on the books since January 2010 and is set to expire in December.To date, two medical marijuana storefronts exist on county land: the Miramar Collective and the Green Room, both in Summerland. The proposed ban wouldn’t affect their operation, but it would stop similar businesses from applying for permits from the county.
The original ordinance would have drafted regulations dictating where additional businesses could operate. But board members took issue with a number of those locations, citing their proximity to public and private recreational areas, such as the Earl Warren Show Grounds.
During the meeting, the board heard from county Undersheriff Jim Peterson, who echoed law enforcement’s stance that medicinal cannabis dispensaries are nothing but trouble and a drain on resources.
“We have seen throughout the state—throughout the nation—that storefronts like this are havens for money laundering, illicit criminal acts; they lead to property crimes and crimes of violence,” Peterson said. “Once you start making a profit, that goes above and beyond the Compassionate Use Act.”
In 2010, four dispensaries opened in unincorporated Santa Barbara County. By February 2011, two of them—Helping Hands and Central Coast Collective—were shut down due to law enforcement and zoning issues.
Undersheriff Peterson pointed out that while no county ban has ever been upheld by the state appeals court, no ban has ever been invalidated, either. He noted that it’s the position of the California State Sheriffs’ Association that such county bans are legally defensible, citing a recent case in Anaheim.
“We operate under the guidelines of the Attorney General, certainly, but we can’t deny that there is a conflict between federal and state law,” Peterson said. “That’s where we have a hard time doing our job in an efficient manner … .”
A total of five residents addressed the board. Three of them asked the supervisors to increase access for medical marijuana patients by allowing more dispensaries to operate.
“I am with the sheriff. There are people who are abusing the system, making money,” Michael Medina said. “I wouldn’t want to turn Santa Barbara into Los Angeles, where it just goes crazy and you have 1,200 collectives everywhere. It is ridiculous—there has to be some sort of regulation, but we can’t over-regulate it.
“As far as a ban goes, I would like us to remember the idea of banning this would be unconstitutional towards the people who voted for this to be in place—and that is us,” he said. “I always grew up with the idea that you are civil servants, and that you serve the will of the people.”
Fifth District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino said he’s sympathetic to those in need, but thinks “it’s important to note that we aren’t limiting access to anybody—it’s still going to be allowed in the city of Santa Barbara.”
Lavagnino cited the closing of Helping Hands and the Central Coast Collective as a reason for the ban.
“I think the purveyors had their chance,” he said. “We had four storefronts open in January [2010] and two of them closed within a year, which leaves still two storefronts for folks.”
Farr argued that the staff recommendation was preferable to an outright ban, as it would allow her constituents convenient access and to implement stricter regulations than if the board simply allowed the moratorium to expire.
“I have a little bit different take on it. I don’t support a ban and can’t make the findings for a ban,” Farr said. “Remember that most people in the county did support [the Compassionate Use Act] on the ballot, and this ordinance received a unanimous vote of support from the staff at the Montecito and county planning commissions.”
The board will address the ban again at its Nov. 1 meeting.
This article appears in Oct 13-20, 2011.