The problems with SF's new cannabis dispensary regulations

Someone just sent me this article, which, according to him or her, "has been sent to every newspaper and many e-news outlets and sites, but not carried by anybody but CANORML. The general opinnion seems to be to sweep the outcome of legal flaws, SB 420 misinterpretations and resultant bad laws under the rug and just sing praises for the legislation getting pushed through."

Power to the people!
          <<< starchild >>>

                                                           A TALE OF TWO CITIES\.\.\.\.
                                                                SAN FRANCISCO
                                                         Rev\. Randelyn C\. Webster, DSM

        Seems I&#39;ve heard the word &quot;sanctuary&quot; bandied about a few times &#39;round here through the years\.  Wait\! I know\! Wasn&#39;t it back in 2001 that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors stomped their feet and drew a line in the sand, declaring San Francisco a Sanctuary for Medical Cannabis?                                            
        Yep\! That&#39;s it\! I remember\!
        And I&#39;ve got only one thing to ask: What happened?
        The San Francisco that I remember was a very different place, and it wasn&#39;t that very long ago\. So again I ask, What happened?
       
        These days it&#39;s all about the permits\. \(Have you got yours? How&#39;m I gonna get mine?\) Everybody&#39;s trying to figure it all out \- and when the reality finally sinks in, the results are staggering\! Contrary to popular belief, many of the older, patient owned and operated facilities may not survive\.
        Permit fees are supposed to be structured reasonably, as in affordable\. It&#39;s not fair to make the cost of opening a facility so high that the only ones able to do so are the guys backed by big bucks\.
        But that&#39;s what&#39;s happening\.
        Between the two professional full size architectural drawings \(at several thousands of dollars\), the permit fees and any upgrades required, a facility could likely spend upwards of between $20,000 and $50,000\. \.
        That kind of money just isn&#39;t possible for many of the smaller, long\-established places\-most of which are patient owned and operated\.
        Contrary to popular belief, running a medical cannabis service organization or agency is not a hand\-over\-fist money making proposition\. Most are non profit or not\-for\-profit, with massive overhead due to inflated rents, insurance needs and legal retainers\. It&#39;s hard enough keeping costs down as it is\!
        The majority of patients who frequent these establishments are low income\. Many are SSI recipients, but some have no visible means of support\. Some live at home with their families, but most live in small Tenderloin SROs, or in doorways, boxes and parks\.
        Where does the city and county think this money is going to come from?
        Certainly not off the patients&#39; backs\! That&#39;s just not right\!

        It&#39;s also not right to force all facilities to be reported and permitted as retail models\. In the first place, it is federally illegal to &quot;sell&quot; cannabis \(read &quot;marijuana&quot;\) in the United States\. Calling what happens in these places &quot;sales&quot; is incriminating\!
        Heck, even offering cannabis for free is a federal crime\! But the bottom line is simple: patients need their medicine\. The federal government doesn&#39;t accept compassionate medical use of cannabis\.
        Forcing facility operators and staff \(some of these places are owned, managed and staffed by volunteers\) to report their activities as &quot;sales&quot; is forcing them into self\-incrimination\. The fifth amendment says we have the right not to incriminate ourselves\.
         
        These facilities are providing the service of safe access to qualified medical cannabis patients\. There are many variations of access available to patients\.
        There are counter services, visitation/delivery services, grow\-ops, collectives, cooperatives and even community centers\. Services such as these are not retail\.
       
        These places and the people who operate them are doing what the city, county and state cannot do\. That&#39;s understandable\. Federal funding is important to many of the programs and projects Californians depend upon\. Loosing these programs would be devastating\.
        But still, there should be some consideration, some break for the folks in the trenches\. After all, there is a Drug War going on\! San Francisco used to understand this fact, and sought ways to minimize the danger to patient care providers\. 

        What&#39;s wrong with grandfathering the pre\-moratorium existing facilities right where they stand, as they stand? Most of them have been around for a while and have established fairly good relationships within their neighborhoods\. Some even belong to neighborhood and merchants&#39; associations and take part in programs such as the city&#39;s Disaster Preparedness workgroups and NERT trainings\.
        These places existed peacefully with their neighbors for a very long time\.\.\. nobody heard complaints about odors or parking\.  By the way: parking\. Come on now\! We&#39;ve always had parking problems\! 
          These establishments have proven themselves vital to the city&#39;s infrastructure and shining examples of its progressive nature\. They have done nothing wrong\. Why punish them with fees that feel more like fines?     
       
        It was hoped the permit legislation would be a step forward in the legitimization process\. Instead it may cause many of the smaller, but longer\-established facilities to crumble under the unbearable weight of permit fees, expensive add\-ons like ventilation systems, elevators, sprinklers and 1000 foot rule regulations\.
        Why?
        Why force a long\-established facility to go through the expense of installing an elevator when they have a perfectly elegant method of compliance with ADA and their wheel chair patients needs?  This method has been working since the late &#39;90s, why take umbrage now?  
        Why force a place to install huge ventilation systems when there really didn&#39;t seem to be a major problem with odors?  For the sake of freshness, a couple of air filters from Sharper Image would do just fine\.               
        It&#39;s bad enough that many facilities are in danger of being closed; the real shame is the harm being caused to the patients and to their own Medical Cannabis Community\.
        Patients depend upon these places for more than their medicine\. Medicinal cannabis use is holistic, involving more than ingesting the herb \(or its by\-products\)\. Many patients come to view the places as an extension of their home, the staff members as part of their family\. Patient\-to patient care produces holistic empowerment\. Medicinal cannabis use promotes creativity and socialization\.
        These are very important, healing components\.
        Medical cannabis lifts patients out of their depressive isolation, and opens them up to the possibility of feeling better\. Some of these facilities offer activities, crafts, support groups, educational/social events and even NA/AA and peer counseling\.
       
        Where will patients go for these services? Will &quot;Big Pot&quot; provide hugs, a bit of compassion, support groups or a shoulder to cry on?  Will &quot;Big Pot&quot; send anybody to the hospital to visit patients, be on hand to help as a patient breathes their last, hold memorial services and make a Healing Quilt to honor their memory? \.
 
        The permit legislation was pushed through too fast, without proper consideration of all the facts \- in a spirit of getting it done right now rather than getting it done right\.          
        Something different has to happen because as things stand presently, San Francisco&#39;s Sanctuary will only be for Big Pot, and too darned bad about anybody else\!

The sad part is, the patients will suffer most.

Dear Starchild;
   
  If you can please tell the person who sent the article out and was only printed in one place if they wish to have articles like that published they need to follow the AP guidelines for usage and formatting and article length.
   
  Secondly, the article at some 1,100 words is way too long. Even OP/EDs must stay under 750 words. Longer articles only happen by advanced agreement.
   
  Thirdly, the article to be published must be clear, concise, correct and most importantly topical and pithy( whatever that means).
   
  This is not a criticism of the article which was very heartfelt and well intentioned - but if the author wants to get published please have them follow the AP guidelines and the chances it will get published will be greater.
   
  Take it from someone who has gotten LTE's and OP/Eds published.
   
  Ron Getty
  SF Libertarian
  
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
  Someone just sent me this article, which, according to him or her,
"has been sent to every newspaper and many e-news outlets and sites,
but not carried by anybody but CANORML. The general opinnion seems to
be to sweep the outcome of legal flaws, SB 420 misinterpretations and
resultant bad laws under the rug and just sing praises for the
legislation getting pushed through."

Power to the people!
<<< starchild >>>

                                                               A TALE
OF TWO CITIES....
                                                                    SAN
FRANCISCO
                                                             Rev.
Randelyn C. Webster, DSM

            Seems I've heard the word "sanctuary" bandied about a few
times 'round here through the years. Wait! I know! Wasn't it back in
2001 that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors stomped their feet and
drew a line in the sand, declaring San Francisco a Sanctuary for
Medical Cannabis?
            Yep! That's it! I remember!
            And I've got only one thing to ask: What happened?
            The San Francisco that I remember was a very different
place, and it wasn't that very long ago. So again I ask, What happened?
           
            These days it's all about the permits. (Have you got yours?
How'm I gonna get mine?) Everybody's trying to figure it all out - and
when the reality finally sinks in, the results are staggering! Contrary
to popular belief, many of the older, patient owned and operated
facilities may not survive.
            Permit fees are supposed to be structured reasonably, as in
affordable. It's not fair to make the cost of opening a facility so
high that the only ones able to do so are the guys backed by big bucks.
            But that's what's happening.
            Between the two professional full size architectural
drawings (at several thousands of dollars), the permit fees and any
upgrades required, a facility could likely spend upwards of between
$20,000 and $50,000. .
            That kind of money just isn't possible for many of the
smaller, long-established places-most of which are patient owned and
operated.
            Contrary to popular belief, running a medical cannabis
service organization or agency is not a hand-over-fist money making
proposition. Most are non profit or not-for-profit, with massive
overhead due to inflated rents, insurance needs and legal retainers.
It's hard enough keeping costs down as it is!
            The majority of patients who frequent these establishments
are low income. Many are SSI recipients, but some have no visible means
of support. Some live at home with their families, but most live in
small Tenderloin SROs, or in doorways, boxes and parks.
            Where does the city and county think this money is going to
come from?
            Certainly not off the patients' backs! That's just not
right!

            It's also not right to force all facilities to be reported
and permitted as retail models. In the first place, it is federally
illegal to "sell" cannabis (read "marijuana") in the United States.
Calling what happens in these places "sales" is incriminating!
            Heck, even offering cannabis for free is a federal crime!
But the bottom line is simple: patients need their medicine. The
federal government doesn't accept compassionate medical use of cannabis.
            Forcing facility operators and staff (some of these places
are owned, managed and staffed by volunteers) to report their
activities as "sales" is forcing them into self-incrimination. The
fifth amendment says we have the right not to incriminate ourselves.
             
            These facilities are providing the service of safe access
to qualified medical cannabis patients. There are many variations of
access available to patients.
            There are counter services, visitation/delivery services,
grow-ops, collectives, cooperatives and even community centers.
Services such as these are not retail.
           
            These places and the people who operate them are doing what
the city, county and state cannot do. That's understandable. Federal
funding is important to many of the programs and projects Californians
depend upon. Loosing these programs would be devastating.
            But still, there should be some consideration, some break
for the folks in the trenches. After all, there is a Drug War going on!
San Francisco used to understand this fact, and sought ways to minimize
the danger to patient care providers.

            What's wrong with grandfathering the pre-moratorium
existing facilities right where they stand, as they stand? Most of them
have been around for a while and have established fairly good
relationships within their neighborhoods. Some even belong to
neighborhood and merchants' associations and take part in programs such
as the city's Disaster Preparedness workgroups and NERT trainings.
            These places existed peacefully with their neighbors for a
very long time... nobody heard complaints about odors or parking. By
the way: parking. Come on now! We've always had parking problems!
              These establishments have proven themselves vital to the
city's infrastructure and shining examples of its progressive nature.
They have done nothing wrong. Why punish them with fees that feel more
like fines?
           
            It was hoped the permit legislation would be a step forward
in the legitimization process. Instead it may cause many of the
smaller, but longer-established facilities to crumble under the
unbearable weight of permit fees, expensive add-ons like ventilation
systems, elevators, sprinklers and 1000 foot rule regulations.
            Why?
            Why force a long-established facility to go through the
expense of installing an elevator when they have a perfectly elegant
method of compliance with ADA and their wheel chair patients needs?
This method has been working since the late '90s, why take umbrage
now?
            Why force a place to install huge ventilation systems when
there really didn't seem to be a major problem with odors? For the
sake of freshness, a couple of air filters from Sharper Image would do
just fine.
            It's bad enough that many facilities are in danger of being
closed; the real shame is the harm being caused to the patients and to
their own Medical Cannabis Community.
            Patients depend upon these places for more than their
medicine. Medicinal cannabis use is holistic, involving more than
ingesting the herb (or its by-products). Many patients come to view the
places as an extension of their home, the staff members as part of
their family. Patient-to patient care produces holistic empowerment.
Medicinal cannabis use promotes creativity and socialization.
            These are very important, healing components.
            Medical cannabis lifts patients out of their depressive
isolation, and opens them up to the possibility of feeling better. Some
of these facilities offer activities, crafts, support groups,
educational/social events and even NA/AA and peer counseling.
           
            Where will patients go for these services? Will "Big Pot"
provide hugs, a bit of compassion, support groups or a shoulder to cry
on? Will "Big Pot" send anybody to the hospital to visit patients, be
on hand to help as a patient breathes their last, hold memorial
services and make a Healing Quilt to honor their memory? .
     
            The permit legislation was pushed through too fast, without
proper consideration of all the facts - in a spirit of getting it done
right now rather than getting it done right.
            Something different has to happen because as things stand
presently, San Francisco's Sanctuary will only be for Big Pot, and too
darned bad about anybody else!
The sad part is, the patients will suffer most.