Comments on: Sacramento takes a “timeout”

By: James Anthony

James Anthony — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 07:09:28 +0000

In theory, a moratorium, like any zoning law, can only operate forwards in time. It cannot work retroactively to shut down legally existing collectives. So the City can prevent more new collectives from opening in the future without following its regulations and guidelines, but it cannot close the existing ones (unless it takes the position that they are somehow illegal which would mean 20 or so legal disputes!)

For now, I agree with Mr. Duncan that it seems reasonable for the City to take a timeout, freeze the situation, and work with the existing collectives to come up with a workable system of control and regulation that can include and preserve all existing legal collectives.

By: jwristen

jwristen — Thu, 28 May 2009 02:44:25 +0000

Mr Duncan,
With all due respect, in my opinion for your organization to support any type of moratorium shows me–and numerous owners of collectives in this city–that you do not support them. A time-out sounds very Orwellian. You and I both know this is a soft moratorium, with the few licenses being granted in the future going to the most well-funded, and politically connected people in the MM industry. This destroys the entire spirit of our movement. that being said, I am the first to agree with you on senseable regulation Mr. Duncan, I closed my collective at the request of the city, a request that many clubs choose to ignore. I feel comfortable saying I can speak for many owners of collectives and patients in this city, do not press to eliminate competition among collectives. Regulations and guidelines are fine. These actions only hurt the patients, who need quality and fair prices.

By: Don Duncan

Don Duncan — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:46:55 +0000

Regulations reduce crime and complaints around medical cannabis collectives. This is good for patients and the community at large. The moratorium is an ordinary beginning of the regulatory process in Sacramento. The goal is to give lawmakers time to write sensible guidelines without the kind of public backlash that we have seen in other cities. Look to Oakland and Los Angeles for examples of how the perception of unregulated growth influences the final ordinances. Sacramento can do better.

At this time, I think it is safe to take Councilmember Cohn and his colleagues at their word. They are not banning collectives or opposing medical cannabis – just taking a timeout. Patients and community members in Sacramento should work with the City Council to draft regulations that work for everyone.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:14:02 +0000

I’m also concerned about limiting competition… seems to only benefit collective owners, while hurting patients.

For the record, I oppose any limitation on the number of collectives, and will be at the meeting to make sure that the patients’ perspective is represented!

By: Connie H.

Connie H. — Wed, 27 May 2009 03:07:26 +0000

It is so important that we support ASA and the movement for safe access. If you cannot get out there in the field for whatever reason you can join this incredable organization and donate as you can. They are fighting in the frontlines for every Patient! This great cause has a great cost-Let’s keep ASA fighting for all of us! DONATE.