Loading...
2014-210-Minutes for Meeting March 17,2014 Recorded 4/11/2014 NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,PCOUNTY CLERK V4 2014110 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 04/11/2014 10'15:19 AM liii l I lIl 111101 I III 1 III 2014-210 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes Count y Clerk Certificate Page ,,,,,,o E. ,0 j, #„, i 8 ,, , 01-ES^CO G Ottit 0/rc "41:k j' Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, MARCH 17, 2014 Commissioners'Hearing Room-Administration Building- 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Alan Unger. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Sheriff Larry Blanton; Nick Lelack, Community Development; and a approximately 50 other citizens, pP y including representatives of the media. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 10:03 a.m. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT None was offered. 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2014-031, the 2015-19 Transportation Capital Improvement List. Chris Doty gave an overview of the item, which includes work that they have not been able to do previously. He is pleased there are now the opportunity and the funds to do some of these projects. DEBONE: Move approval of Resolution No. 2014-031. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 1 of 15 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of Document No. 2014-141, an Intergovernmental Agreement with Public Works Partners in MORE (Managing Oregon Resources Efficiently). Mr. Doty provided information on this document, which allows agencies to be able to do more with less through cooperation with each other. The Solid Waste Department might be the first one to share equipment, with Marion County. UNGER: Move signature of Document No. 2014-141. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 5. Before the Board was a Public Hearing. and Consideration of First and Second Readings and Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2014- 008, Adding DCC 9.04.040 to Prohibit Any Business or Sale of Any Federally Controlled Substance in any Deschutes County Zone Except as Allowed by Federal Law. Chair Baney pointed out to the audience that the County does not have jurisdiction within any cities. She limited testimony to two minutes due to the large number of people wishing to speak. She read the opening statement at this time. No conflict of interest from the Commissioners was indicated. There were no challenges from the public, so the public hearing was opened. Nick Lelack provided an overview of the item. He gave a PowerPoint presentation and statement regarding the history of the issue, the timing and options available to the Board. He said Erica Fuller-Hewitt of Rimrock Trails Adolescent Treatment Services, and Jock Pribnow, MD, of the Public Health Advisory Board submitted e-mails in support of the Ordinance; and Kathleen Gilbert of Redmond is not supportive of the Ordinance. Commissioner Unger asked if the current Ordinance as written mirrors State law. Laurie Craghead replied it is somewhat different, but the Board could make any changes at the end of the hearing, if desired. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 2 of 15 Public testimony began at this time. Jessica Jacks, Prevention Coordinator for the County, said there are health concerns of people in her department about children accessing marijuana. Oregon has the highest marijuana use rate for children ages 12-17 years old. The brain is not fully developed until the mid-20's, and this substance can permanently damage the brain. She added that the rules are not strong enough to protect young people. She then provided recommendations to the Board. Chair Baney said the County has control over the areas outside the city limits only, so if someone has concerns about what happens within the cities, this is not the proper venue. Robert Gordon is a retired fire fighter, and his brother is a retired police officer. His brother became critically ill and studied marijuana, which is not a class 1 narcotic, and found it helpful. Alcohol is a much worse problem, as is tobacco. Prescription drug companies want control. If the big corporations wanted to carry marijuana products, no one would fight it. These are mom and pop stores, small business, which should not be hurt. Children have a whole lot worse problem with alcohol. He does not think this law is needed. Inge Fryklund is a four-year resident of Bend, speaking for herself, her husband and LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, comprised of current and former police, prosecutors and judges who have come to the conclusion that prohibition is doing a whole lot more damage than the substance itself. They are looking at prohibition of alcohol in the past, which resulted in a lot more damage overall. They want to see marijuana legalized and regulated. The only ordinance today is a moratorium on dispensaries here. Having dispensaries to allow citizens to gain access to a product allowed under State law seems reasonable. This would allow easy access to people who already have medical cards. If there are concerns about the cards, they need to take it up with the medical profession. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 3 of 15 The experience in 19 other states that allow medical marijuana is that the dispensaries are much more careful than most. Children and others can obtain this substance in other ways that are not regulated. This allows people with medical problems to obtain the medicine they need. She feels this should be legalized, regulated and controlled, and the rules can be adjusted over time. She is against the moratorium. Barbara Stoefen operates a physician recruitment business, and is on the board of directors of a drug coalition groups. She said when they visit the schools, the talk is no longer just about meth. She is concerned about the easy tolerance of marijuana. Some children hear in their homes that they would rather have them use marijuana than drink alcohol. Baby boomers have a wrong perception of the harm from marijuana because it is not the same drug now that it was. Addiction is real, and this is not a benign drug; and it has the same addiction rate as alcohol, about one out of ten or eleven. In spite of controls in place for alcohol, more people are killed by this than all other causes overall. Many addictionologists and drug prevention and treatment specialists state this. When medical marijuana was legalized, she voted in favor of it, as she saw wisdom in helping those with serious chronic pain. However, about 60,000 cards were issued since then. In no way are there those many people with that kind of pain management issues. The average card holder is a 30-something white male without MS or cancer. The AMA and other professionals do not support this. If it is medicine, make it a medicine. Only 10% of users have a real prescription. They need to take a break and make good decisions for the overall community. Conrad Ruel said he has not made up his mind, but sees the emergency adoption aspect being premature. Colorado and Washington are being watched. CNN had a program where a noted surgeon reversed his opinion on this. The biggest fear he has is it being classified as Class 1 along with cocaine and heroin. He feels this is premature; he suggested they wait a year or two to see how things happen with the other states. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 4 of 15 Michael Hughes said he is a former farmer from Nebraska. He moved here and opened a law practice. He learned about cannabis when he was about six years old. His grandfather was a hemp farmer until 1937 in Nebraska. By the 1940's the government shut them all down, but it grows everywhere. His grandfather and others before him grew hemp back until the 1600's. He does not know why everyone gets so worked up about this. Oregon is a unique state. Nebraska has a medical marijuana program that does not allow access, so people have to drive to another state. This is allowed in Oregon and he feels it is a land use issue. Medical cannabis is a big industry in this area. The legislation in place has tough regulations in it, providing background checks, security measures, surveillance, testing of products, and making sure all are labeled. He invited the Board to read 3460 and he will answer any questions they have. The only one who has more regulation in place for this is in Colorado. Maybe there is one application out there near La Pine for a dispensary. He does not feel this is an emergency situation. This would benefit people in that area who need it. Jo Zachary, a medical marijuana patient, had a ruptured brain aneurism due to pesticide exposure, and is lucky to be alive. Medically, she has refractory epilepsy, and regular medications don't work. The medical solution recommended was removal of all or part of the temporal brain. The medical part of marijuana works and is keeping her alive. For people with epilepsy, this is a life and death issue. The CDC said they anticipate a lot of cases of epilepsy in returning soldiers with brain injuries. She would like to get this pill along with her others from a regular pharmacy. She has spent a lot of time working in medical libraries, and monitors medical literature. The research from the last six months to a year is amazing. This is conventional research. She would be happy to work with the Board and provide with the latest information that is used by doctors. She suggested this ordinance be delayed while they learn more. Tim Fratto, Jr. said he owns and runs a cannabis club here. His was the first to open and there have been many trials and tribulations by not allowing people access to this medicine. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 5 of 15 He sees more children today that are sick and there is nowhere for the parents to run to help them. He has four children ages 1 to 16, the only problem he sees are children not being educated properly. His oldest one tells him it is a gateway drug. For leukemia and epilepsy, this medicine has helped in ways the big pharmaceutical companies can't. He tries to reach out to schools because he feels that education is key. Kids have parties using pharmaceuticals and alcohol as it is. Safe access points are important. He only sees sick patients, and some rely on others to grow their cannabis. There is a big number of troops coming back with PTSD and others who need safe medicine. Everyone who is sick deserves help and safe access points. Chair Baney reminded the audience that they are not talking about within the cities,just the outlying unincorporated areas. Nick Harsell is co-owner of a Bend dispensary facility. People who come to him really need this drug. Some of them have to travel long distances and some don't have that kind of money. By restricting access to other parts of the County where one could open will keep safe access points from them. They are trying to provide a clean, professional atmosphere. Gladys Biglor, a resident of the area for 25 years, said they should follow Medford's lead and enact the law. Public disclosure is needed, including how many are in the County, where they are located and the impact. All the County citizens need a full understanding of this. It is federally prohibited, and the top law enforcement officer has asked for a ban. The public must be informed and then weigh in, beyond this public hearing. A puny ad in the Bulletin doesn't cut it as there is too much at stake. There seems to be more public notice when they cut a tree in the forest. By enacting a ban, they will have time to become informed. Along with concerns regarding medical issues, she does not want Deschutes County to look as trashy as Gold Beach, Oregon, as she feels it is trashy enough here already. Gold Beach has dispensaries all along its highway. (She provided written comments to the Chair.) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 6 of 15 Chet Matwick said his wife is a patient. He has 30 years' experience as a respiratory therapist and understanding breathing issues. Kids are exposed to this anyway, and are getting their products from the street, where they might be cut with just about anything. Wanting to stop the legal growth or running them out means they will use pesticides and insecticides and bring it here, where kids and those who need the medical part of it will get something questionable. There are many uses for cannabis. One problem is it being contaminated by the news media. There is little understanding of this product. It needs to be grown in a controlled environment so those who need it can depend on it. He knows several people who are not helped by medical science. People need to be more educated. Jeremy Kwit operates Bloom Well, a community dispensary. He is speaking on behalf of the 3,100 patients in Deschutes County. They are required to have growers, and growers can only do this for four people. They can also designate a caregiver who can access this for the person, another 1,000. He is concerned about the emergency clause. This has been legal since 1998, and clarity was provided by the legislature last year. This is overseen by the Oregon Health Authority, police chiefs, sheriffs, the board of pharmacy and legislators. They crafted 30 pages of regulations, subject to open book policies, and they have to follow rules above and beyond any other business. The OHA deliberated on this for a long time. This ordinance would put politics before patients. Prohibition is based on fear and ignorance, and not on data. Other states show a decline in the use among teens where they have this in place. There is analysis from national organizations that examined local regulations and saw how this enhances safety and peace. They need to be aware of recent DOJ position, and the Oregon model is compliant. He acknowledged there is a concern regarding teen use. However, the California Pediatric Association says that where it is regulated, there is a minimized forbidden fruit effect and low-level dealers are no longer operating on the street. His siblings are drug abusers, and his sister was on meth. He does not think marijuana is that potent and does not provide the fix that those kinds of users want. (He submitted a document at this time.) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 7 of 15 Ryan Garcia owns a facility and has operated for six months. He is from Florida where it is heavily regulated. His first experience seeing cannabis in use was his grandmother, who had terminal cancer. Her doctor could not legally prescribe it, but said it would help her. It made her last months much better but his father had to go to a black market dealer to do this. Perception in the media differs, and much is based on fear mongering. The University of Stanford Neuroscience Department stated that 83% of children who had epilepsy who received a tincture were drastically improved or became seizure free. The University of Madrid in Spain found that this can provide remission for some cancers. Quick search of this product shows 20,000 references to testing the effects on the human body. The average FDA approved drug has maybe one clinical trial and a lot fewer tests before it is approved for use. His concern is the safe access. Otherwise they push taxpayer dollars into the black market and enforce the illegal nature of the transaction. Legitimizing removes this. Chris Worsling said he was previously from Georgia, and it is not a great place. He sustained an injury resulting in pain and other issues. After a year of medical care and examinations, he got worse and met a chiropractor who suggested alternative medicines other than hard pain drugs. He smokes marijuana daily to relieve the pain. It has made him functional. Patients like him need safe access rather than meeting up with someone shady in an alley. This goes against the will of the Governor, the legislature and the state. These boundaries need to be broken. Jeremy Sackett, co-founder of Saskia Labs in Bend said they do testing on these products. He agrees with the points brought up by the prevention person. As a father, he wants to educate his daughter appropriately and does not want her using it. However, there are many opportunities for medical applications. It is important to carefully consider the County's ban to restrict access to these products for beneficial use. He does not want to see them try to dismantle the OHA and state laws. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 8 of 15 There is no quality control in illicit distribution. A lab in California shows that many pesticides are transferred on cannabis that is not controlled. Lack of access drives people into the black market and greater potential for adverse effects. There has been much standardizing from a clinical standpoint and quality control. Knowing the product is safe through testing and regulation can bring this relief to patients. He opposed the ban and believes in safe access throughout the County. Julie Spackman, a County employee in the Health Department - substance abuse, lives in Alfalfa and for her this issue is personal. Marijuana use was already voted down once or twice. The State law is poorly crafted and short- sighted. She is great concerns about the security of dispensaries in outlying areas. Law enforcement responses takes longer there. This is a casual system and these businesses may become magnets for criminals. Increased access to any substance increases use, and there are already softening attitudes about this. Oregon ranks #1 for marijuana use in children. Rates are almost twice as high as most places. Appeals regarding job growth must be tempered with what we already know. We spend about $10 on social costs of each $1 earned, ten times that of the income. She would like to see this banned until 2015 while it is researched. They are not in line with pharmacies, and there is not even a restriction of operators not being under the influence while they are working, so they may not be able to accurately dispense. Law enforcement can't get to all the outlying areas. This will be at a high cost to primary medical care and addiction treatment programs. No one is equipped to manage this or respond as needed. Todd Hornex is a business owner and a resident of La Pine. He is attempting to open a dispensary on Burgess Road. It has been a store and gas station for about 40 years. He has heard a lot of similar testimony about the benefits, but there is a side not being addressed. He understands that President Obama feels that decriminalizing marijuana can reduce the prison population and the influence of drug cartels. There is a drug bust about every ten days, but they don't hear much about marijuana busts. Compared to all else, this is minimal. Other drugs are much more detrimental to children and the economy, hard to quit, and none are prescribed as medicines. They are highly addictive and dangerous. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 9 of 15 Safe access is an issue to him. He knows patients there who are on SS1 and disability who don't have the time or money to come to Bend. Safe access to people outside the cities is essential for patients and the economy. Rules are leaning towards regulating this like alcohol, and it should be acceptable as well no matter what the zoning, if alcohol was already allowed. His family spent a lot of money on this and he spoke to Mr. DeBone about it previously. This might help the entire system. William Kemp said he is a medicinal patient, and chose to do this on his own. He had chronic back pain since he was a boy, and was on prescription drugs and almost lost his life to them. He uses medical marijuana which enables him to function in society. He deserves to have his medicine as well. There is a heroin epidemic in the cities, as well as with narcotic drugs prescribed by doctors. Cannabis is not the same. He can function with it when he can't on the harder drugs. He needs access to a dispensary for his own well-being. There are some fallibilities to the system but they can work through those. To deny access to medication is wrong. He does not want to be a pharmaceutical addict. He has not heard this about marijuana.. Dru West, wrote a best seller book on growing marijuana. He hears feedback all the time. He is a writer for High Times and gives seminars world-wide on this subject. He has heard a lot of people talk about prohibition, because of ideas not based on facts. He has been hearing how bad pot is for decades, with little research to back this up. Many people die from alcohol use. He understands this is about putting in dispensaries. He suggested the Board wait until there is more information and facts from those who take it seriously. He hopes the Board has not already decided since he can get a lot more people involved in this over the month. At the very least, they need to put this off for a while so they can learn more about it. This is not an emergency, as dispensaries have been here for years. They should not be rash. He wants to offer his advice and expertise on this issue. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 10 of 15 Bob Spackman is a rural resident. He said there are obviously changes coming. He would like for the Board to delay this for a year, to give more time to see what is going to happen. They need to watch other parts of the state. He is in favor of slowing this process down. Chair Baney said that the District Attorney asked that his letter to be read into the record, and she did so at this time. (A copy is attached for reference.) Sheriff Larry Blanton and other law enforcement officials were in attendance, and Sheriff Blanton read a statement into the record. (A copy is attached for reference.) He said if you apply the same math, and assume that medical marijuana is a good idea, this means they are short about 800 regular pharmacies in the County. It is not a prescription drug through the card. It is the #1 abused drug in the U.S. Laurie Craghead said that they have been following a land use process in the event it is considered on appeal to be one. Statute does not require it be addressed under land use. As of today, the Governor had not signed the relevant bill, so it is being handled under a land use regulations at this time. She said as they deliberate, they might want to consider leaving the record open in case they want new information or answers to questions other than procedure. Commissioner Unger stated he has a friend with cancer who uses marijuana to help with symptoms. He also recognizes the legislature allowed for dispensaries. But this last session they allowed local government to figure out time, place and manner; and to put in rules that are needed to make sure they know what they are doing. That is the choice today, follow State law and do a moratorium that would sunset in May 2015 to allow time to figure this out. That is why they are looking at this as emergency so there are not a lot of problems right away while the issue is so cloudy. There are plenty of ways to access this drug, so they could move forward to prevent proliferation in the County. The rural areas are residential in nature and there is less control over some things. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 11 of 15 Commissioner DeBone said this involves rural and residential areas. The legislatures are defining the laws at the state or federal level. This is land use in Deschutes County rural areas. He likes this being defined at the State level and does not want to be a leader in this area. It is an interesting discussion but a lot needs to be worked out. Chair Baney thanked everyone for being here and for sharing personal stories. Unfortunately, she does believe that there is an opportunity without a lot of sideboards in Oregon. The 17 applications they received could allow for these without thought to siting and what fits the local communities. All have to go through siting criteria and all components need to be there. There is some value and need for medicinal marijuana and some people are living proof of this. In the rural areas of the county they don't have a lot of facilities for anything. Most are facilities for the basics. They should take a step back and make sure siting and manner of placement is right. There is availability for this medicine as stated in the urban areas, and the city of Bend offers many opportunities. The cities may want to take this on, but most services are not provided in rural areas anyway so people usually have to go into town. Ms. Craghead said because of conflicts between state and federal laws, they need time to figure this out. Going back to what the legislature offered in SB 1531 gives time to resolve issues and allow time for the 2015 legislature to look at it further. The local governments were given an opportunity to have a moratorium in a timely basis, which is the reason for the emergency clause. Also they can then clarify the language regarding AOC criteria for substances and use of the land. The Board supports the language from AOC, which mirrors what the legislature came up with. Commissioner Unger stated that the emergency clause is appropriate. People have access today. They want to move more quickly due to the timeframe and. to give time and space to breathe. Commissioner DeBone said pharmacy access would be ideal. They want to do this in a coordinated fashion so they then don't end up having to take something away if it is handled differently by the legislature or others in the future. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 12 of 15 Ms. Craghead said they can close the public hearing if desired, and the new language would be read into the record if they want. She offered to read these changes into the record. She added the suggested wording from AOC. The title would change as well to delete references to `any controlled substance', and subject to the areas only under the jurisdiction of Deschutes County. The hearing was closed at this point. UNGER: Moved first and second readings of Ordinance No. 2014-008, declaring an emergency, incorporating the changes that have been read into the record by staff. DEBONE: Second. Chair Baney did the first and second readings by title only. DEBONE: Move adoption. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. DEBONE: Move approval. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items 6. Signature of Resolution No. 2014-030, Transferring Appropriations within the Fair & Expo Fund 7. Signature of Resolution No. 2014-032, Appropriating a New Grant in the Public Health Fund Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 13 of 15 8. Signature of Resolution No. 2014-033, Transferring Appropriations within the Non-Departmental Category of the General Fund 9. Signature of Resolution No. 2014-034, Transferring Appropriations in the 9-1-1 County Service District Fund 10. Approval of Minutes: • Business Meeting: March 5 and 12, 2014 • Work Sessions: March 3, 5 and 12, 2014 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 11. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $7,377.61. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 12. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District in the Amount of$1,908.26. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 14 of 15 RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 13. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of$1,648,106.99. DEBONE: Move approval, subject to review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 14. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None were offered. Being no other items brought before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 12:02 p.m. DATED this ( S Day of 2014 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioner . ayh, Tammy Baney, Chai f101,91-4-- Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ATTEST: Alan Unger, Commissioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 15 of 15 G otir vx ;Yu r' Lz� 0 0i Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.dcschutcs.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, MARCH 17, 2014 Commissioners' Hearing Room- Administration Building- 1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up card(provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. 3. CONSIDERATION of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2014-031, the 2015-19 Transportation Capital Improvement List -- Chris Doty, Road Department Suggested Action: Move Board signature of Resolution No. 2014-031. 4. CONSIDERATION of Chair Signature of Document No. 2014-141, an Intergovernmental Agreement with Public Works Partners in MORE (Managing Oregon Resources Efficiently) — Chris Doty, Road Department Suggested Action: Move Board signature of Document No. 2014-141. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 1 of 6 5. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of First and Second Readings and Adoption, by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2014-008, Adding DCC 9.04.040 to Prohibit Any Business or Sale of Any Federally Controlled Substance in any Deschutes County Zone Except as Allowed by Federal Law —Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Nick Lelack, Community Development Suggested Action: Take testimony; close or leave hearing open, conduct first and second readings, adopt by emergency if appropriate. CONSENT AGENDA 6. Signature of Resolution No. 2014-030, Transferring Appropriations within the Fair & Expo Fund 7. Signature of Resolution No. 2014-032, Appropriating a New Grant in the Public Health Fund 8. Signature of Resolution No. 2014-033, Transferring Appropriations within the Non-Departmental Category of the General Fund 9. Signature of Resolution No. 2014-034, Transferring Appropriations in the 9-1-1 County Service District Fund 10. Approval of Minutes: • Business Meeting: March 5 and 12, 2014 • Work Sessions: March 3, 5 and 12, 2014 CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 11. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 12. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 2 of 6 RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 13. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County 14. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible,please call(541) 388-6572, or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker(a)d_cschutes.org. PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting,an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e),real property negotiations;ORS 192.660(2)(h),litigation;ORS 192.660(2)(d),labor negotiations;ORS 192.660(2)(b),personnel issues;or other executive session items. FUTURE MEETINGS: (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners'meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting,please call 388-6572.) Monday, March 17 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session--could include executive session(s) Tuesday, March 18 8:00 a.m. Performance Management Meeting/Update—Adult Parole& Probation (at P&P) Thursday, March 20 8:30 a.m. Leadership Redmond Meeting (at the County) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 3 of 6 Monday, March 24 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Tuesday, March 25 1:00 p.m. Employee Benefits Advisory Committee Meeting Wednesday, March 26 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Thursday, March 27 9:00 a.rn. Performance Management Meeting/Update—Human Resources Monday, March 31 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Tuesday, April 1 10:00 a.m. Substance Abuse Policy Meeting—at the County 3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Wednesday, April 2 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 11:00 a.m. EDCO Annual Luncheon Meeting—at the Riverhouse 2:00 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) - note later time Thursday, April 3 8:00 a.m. Joint Meeting with City of Sisters Council —Sisters City Hall 10:30 a.m. Performance Management Meeting/Update—Assessor's Office Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 4 of 6 Monday, April 7 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Wednesday, April 9 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 11:30 a.m. Redmond Chamber of Commerce, State of the City Address—Juniper Golf Club 2:00 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s)—note later time Wednesday, April 16 2:00 p.m. Career Workgroup Meeting—Redmond Economic Development Office Monday, April 21 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session —could include executive session(s) Tuesday, April 22 1:00 p.m. Employee Benefits Advisory Committee Meeting Wednesday, April 23 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Monday, April 28 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Wednesday, April 30 10:00 a.rn. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 5 of 6 Monday, May 5 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Wednesday, May 7 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Wednesday, May 14 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Monday., May 19 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Wednesday, May 28 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session—could include executive session(s) Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible,please call (541) 388-6572, or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker@deschutes.org. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 17, 2014 Page 6 of 6 K, Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division 5nvironmental Soils Division it vw ,W 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ STAFF REPORT FILE NUMBER TA-14-3 HEARING DATE: March 17, 2014 HEARING LOCATION: Barnes and Sawyer Hearing Rooms Deschutes Service Center 1130 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 APPLICANT: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 REQUEST: Text Addition to Deschutes County Code ("DCC") 9.04 to prohibit the use of any building, structure, location, premises or land for any marijuana business or the sale of any federally controlled substance contrary to federal law in any Deschutes County zone under Title 18. STAFF CONTACT: Nick Lelack, Community Development Department ("CDD") Director APPLICABLE CRITERIA Senate Bill ("SB") 1531C (2014) ORS 203.045 Procedure for adopting ordinance; exception by charter or certain statutes II. BASIC FINDINGS A. BACKGROUND: Under ORS 475.314, facilities registered with the state to dispense medical marijuana were allowed in zones that allow commercial uses. Senate Bill 1531 was introduced in 2014 to allow cities and counties to regulate or restrict or prohibit the registration of medical Quality Services Performed with Pride marijuana facilities allowed under ORS 475.314. That bill was met with opposition. By the end of the 2014 Legislative Session, a compromise was reached allowing cities and counties to enact a moratorium on the operation of registered medical marijuana facilities until May 1, 2015 so long as the moratorium is enacted no later than May 1, 2014. B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Although this moratorium is allowed by SB 1531C and, therefore, is not a land use decision, the Deschutes County Planning Commission was provided the opportunity to review the proposed moratorium and to provide its recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners ("Board"). The Planning Commission forwarded the proposal to the Board with no recommendation and urged caution in the wording of the moratorium. Notice of a public hearing before the Board was published on March 3, 2014 in The Bulletin. Staff submitted the ordinance and text addition to the Board on March 5, 2014. C. PROPOSAL: A text Addition to Deschutes County Code ("DCC") 9.04 to prohibit the use of any building, structure, location, premises or land for any marijuana business or the sale of any federally controlled substance contrary to federal law in any Deschutes County zone under Title 18. D. PUBLIC COMMENTS: As of the date of this Staff Report, no public comments have been received by the Community Development Department. III. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: A. SB 1531C (2014) SECTION 3. (1) Notwithstanding ORS 475.314 and section 2 of this 2014 Act, the governing body of a city or county may adopt an ordinance enacting a moratorium on the operation of registered medical marijuana facilities until May 1, 2015, in the area subject to the jurisdiction of the city or county if the moratorium is enacted no later than May 1, 2014. FINDING: Because the above quoted section allows a local jurisdiction to enact a moratorium outright, such a moratorium is not a land use decision. Additionally, the above section of SB 1531 does not require any findings of compliance with any state or local land use regulation in order to enact the moratorium. Therefore, the adoption of this ordinance fits the definition in ORS 197.015(10)(b) of what is not a land use decision. B. DCC Chapter 22.12 LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES TA-14-3, Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Page 2 of 8 • FINDING: Should such a decision be later found to be a land use decision, as stated above, in accordance with DCC 22.12.010, the staff provided the Deschutes County Planning Commission an opportunity to review the proposed text addition and make any recommendations to the Board. The proposed text to the Planning Commission was slightly different. "The use of any building, structure, location, premises or land for any marijuana business or the sale of any federally prohibited substance is prohibited by Deschutes County Code, and is not a permitted or conditional use in any Deschutes County zone under Title 18." The Planning Commission forwarded the proposed text amendment to the Board with no recommendation and some of the members urged caution in how the amendment is to be worded in order to avoid unintended consequences. Since then, Laurie Craghead, Assistant Legal Counsel, discussed the proposed language with a prosecutor in the United States Attorney General's office to better understand the federal definition of"Controlled Substance." As a result, the language submitted to the Board on March 5, 2014 varies slightly in that it references "federally controlled substances" instead of"federally prohibited substance." "The use of any building, structure, location, premises or land for any marijuana business or the sale of any federally controlled substance is prohibited by Deschutes County Code, and is not a permitted or conditional use in any Deschutes County zone under Title 18 except as allowed by federal law." Notice of a public hearing before the Board was published on March 3, 2014, which is more than the ten days required in DCC 22.12.020(A). Since the proposed text addition was submitted to the Board, the Association of Oregon Counties ("AOC") drafted a proposed form of ordinance that the Board may want to consider. "SECTION 1. Authority to Impose Moratorium on Marijuana Dispensaries Section 2 of this Ordinance is enacted pursuant to one or more of the following authorities: (1) The inherent powers of (insert name of local jurisdiction) pursuant to the Oregon Constitution and Oregon law. (2) The federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC 801, et seq. (3) (insert ordinance or code section number), requiring business license applicants be engaged in activity that complies with county, state, and federal law. (4) 2014 Oregon Senate Bill 1531. (5) 2013 Oregon House Bill 3460. SECTION 2. Moratorium on Marijuana Dispensaries TA-14-3, Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Page 3 of 8 (1) There is a moratorium on the operation of any marijuana dispensary in any area subject to the jurisdiction of(insert name of local jurisdiction). (2) As used in this section, "marijuana dispensary" includes any facility that dispenses marijuana pursuant ORS 475.314, or any other provision of Oregon law. SECTION 3. Notice to Oregon Health Authority A copy of this Ordinance shall be forwarded to the Oregon Health Authority by regular mail, and by any other such means as required by rule of the Oregon Health Authority." Should the Board desire to enact the above, the discussion in Section D. below under Subsection 6 provides the process for adopting the alternative language. Sections 1 and 3 of the AOC version would be clauses in the ordinance and Section 2 would be the actual text addition, in other words, the new Exhibit A. If the Board chooses this version, staff will create the new draft as soon as possible and have it available for signature that same day. C. ORS 215.503 Legislative act by ordinance; mailed notice to individual property owners required by county for land use actions. (M56 Notice) (4) In addition to the notice required by ORS 215.223 (1), at least 20 days but not more than 40 days before the date of the first hearing on an ordinance that proposes to rezone property, the governing body of a county shall cause a written individual notice of land use change to be mailed to the owner of each lot or parcel of property that the ordinance proposes to rezone. (9) For purposes of this section, property is rezoned when the governing body of the county: (a) Changes the base zoning classification of the property; or (b) Adopts or amends an ordinance in a manner that limits or prohibits land uses previously allowed in the affected zone. FINDING: The above statutory provisions are not applicable to the subject County Code text amendment because the uses are prohibited by federal law. Thus, to require the County to permit such uses puts the County in a precarious situation of possibly violating that federal law. Furthermore, no persons could make a valid claim that their properties lose value by being prohibited from using their property in a way that violates federal law. D. 203.045 Procedure for adopting ordinance; exception by charter or certain statutes. TA-14-3, Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Page 4 of 8 (1) This section does not apply to a county that prescribes by charter the manner of adopting ordinances for the county or to an ordinance authorized by a statute other than ORS 203.035. FINDING: Deschutes County is a "General Law" county and does have a charter. Therefore, this statute applies to any ordinance adopted by the County. (2) The ordaining clause of an ordinance adopted under ORS 203.035 shall read: (a) In case of adoption by the county governing body only, "The (name of the governing body) ordains as follows:". (b) In case of adoption or ratification by the electors of the county, "The People of (name of county) ordain as follows:". FINDING: The ordinance includes the appropriate ordaining clause. (3) Except as subsections (4) and (5) of this section provide to the contrary, every ordinance of a county governing body shall, before being put upon its final adoption, be read fully and distinctly in open meeting of that body on two days at least 13 days apart. (4) Except as subsection (5) of this section provides to the contrary, and except ordinances imposing, or providing exemptions from, taxation, an ordinance necessary to meet an emergency may, upon being read first in full and then by title, be adopted at a single meeting of the governing body by unanimous vote of all its members present, provided they constitute a quorum. (5) Any reading required by subsection (3) or (4) of this section may be by title only: (a) If no member of the governing body present at the meeting requests that the ordinance be read in full; or (b) If, not later than one week before the first reading of the ordinance, a copy of it is provided each member, copies of it are available at the headquarters of the governing body, one copy for each person who requests it, and notice of the availability is given by: (A) Written notice posted at the courthouse of the county and two other public places in the county; and (B) Publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, designated by the county governing body and published in the county or, if no newspaper is so published, then in one published elsewhere. FINDING: Per direction from the Board, the ordinance is proposed to have the first and second reading by title only and be adopted by an emergency clause in compliance with TA-14-3, Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Page 5 of 8 • the above provisions. The purpose for the emergency is to prevent as soon as possible the establishment of marijuana dispensing facilities in the unincorporated county area. (6) An ordinance adopted after being read by title only may have no legal effect if it differs substantially from its terms as it is thus filed prior to the reading, unless each section incorporating such a difference, as finally amended prior to being adopted by the governing body, is read fully and distinctly in open meeting of that body. FINDING: Should the Board desire to change the proposed language to that proposed by the Association of Oregon Counties or to any other language, in order to conduct the first and second readings by title only and adopt the ordinance on March 17, 2014, the Board will need to read into the record in its entirety the revised ordinance and text section. Legal staff will attend the meeting to provide guidance as to how to conduct that reading. (7) Upon the final vote on an ordinance, the ayes and nays of the members of the governing body shall be taken and recorded in the record of proceedings of the body. (8) Upon the adoption of an ordinance by the governing body in accordance with this section, the chairperson and recording secretary of the body at the session at which the ordinance is adopted shall sign it with the date of its adoption and with their names and titles of office or position. (9) An ordinance adopted in accordance with this section, if not an emergency ordinance, shall take effect on the 90th day after the date of its adoption, unless it prescribes a later effective date or is referred to the electors of the county. If an ordinance is referred to the electors, it shall take effect only upon the approval of a majority of those voting on the proposed ordinance. An emergency ordinance may take effect immediately upon the date of its adoption. FINDING: The ordinance will be adopted in accordance with the above. IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: The Board should conduct the public hearing. If the Board chooses to move forward with the ordinance after the public hearing, the Board should choose which version of the text amendment it prefers: As submitted to the Board: "9.04.040. Controlled Substances TA-14-3, Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Page 6 of 8 • The use of any building, structure, location, premises or land for any marijuana business or the sale of any federally controlled substance is prohibited by Deschutes County Code, and is not a permitted or conditional use in any Deschutes County zone under Title 18 except as allowed by federal law." As proposed by AOC: "9.04.040. Controlled Substances A. There is a moratorium on the operation of any marijuana dispensary in any area subject to the jurisdiction of Deschutes County. B. As used in this section, 'marijuana dispensary' includes any facility that dispenses marijuana pursuant ORS 475.314, or any other provision of Oregon law." If the Board chooses the latter, the ordinance itself will be changed to read (Track Changes included to show the amended language.): WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") initiated an amendment to Deschutes County Code Title 9 to add Chapter 9.04.040 Controlled Substances; and WHEREAS, after a duly noticed public meeting, on February 27, 2014, the Deschutes County Planning Commission reviewed the amendment and voted five to zero (5-0) to forward the amendment without taking a position to the Board; and WHEREAS, after a duly noticed public hearing, on March 17, 2014 the Board approved the amendment to Deschutes County Code; and WHEREAS, Section 1 of this Ordinance is enacted pursuant to one or more of the following authorities: (1) The inherent powers of (insert name of local jurisdiction) pursuant to the Oregon Constitution and Oregon law. (2) The federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC 801, et seq. (3) 2014 Oregon Senate Bill 1531, (4) 2013 Oregon House Bill 3460; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. ADDING. Deschutes County Code Section 9.04.040 Prohibited Substances is added to read as described in Exhibit "A". Section 2. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage. TA-14-3, Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Page 7 of 8 Section 3. A copy of this Ordinance shall be forwarded to the Oregon Health Authority by regular mail, and by any other such means as required by rule of the Oregon Health Authority. Dated this 10th day of March, 2014 TA-14-3, Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Page 8 of 8 REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Adding DCC 9.04.040 to Prohibit * Any Business or Sale of Any Federally * ORDINANCE NO.2014-008 Controlled Substance in any Deschutes County Zone Except as Allowed by Federal Law and Declaring an Emergency. * WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") initiated an amendment to Deschutes County Code Title 9 to add Chapter 9.04.040 Controlled Substances; and WHEREAS, after a duly noticed public meeting,on February 27, 2014,the Deschutes County Planning Commission reviewed the amendment and voted five to zero(5-0) to forward the amendment without taking a position to the Board;and WHEREAS,after a duly noticed public hearing, on March 17,2014 the Board approved the amendment to Deschutes County Code;now,therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY,OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. ADDING. Deschutes County Code Section 9.04.040 Prohibited Substances is added to read as described in Exhibit"A" /// PAGE 1 OF 2-ORDINANCE NO.2014-008 Section 4. EMERGENCY.This Ordinance being necessary for the public peace,health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage. Dated this of ,2014 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY,OREGON TAMMY BANEY,Chair ANTHONY DeBONE,Vice Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary ALAN UNGER,Commissioner Date of 15`Reading: day of ,2014. Date of 2"d Reading: day of ,2014. Record of Adoption Vote: Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Tammy Baney Anthony DeBone — _ Alan Unger Effective date: day of ,2014. PAGE 2 OF 2-ORDINANCE NO.2014-008 I 9.04.040.Controlled Substances The use of any building,structure,location,premises or land for any marijuana business or the sale of any federally controlled substance is prohibited by Deschutes County Code,and is not a permitted or conditional use in any Deschutes County zone under Title 18 except as allowed by federal law. (Ord.2014-008, §1,2014) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, March 17, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. in the Barnes and Sawyer Rooms of the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, to consider the following request: FILE NUMBER: TA-14-3 SUBJECT: Adoption of an ordinance to prohibit the use of any building, structure, location, premises or land for any marijuana business or the sale of any federally prohibited substance in any Deschutes County zone under Title 18. APPLICANT: Deschutes County STAFF CONTACT: Nick Lelack, Nick.Lelack©deschutes.org Copies of the staff report, application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at the Planning Division at no cost and can be purchased for 25 cents a page. The staff report should be made available 7 days prior to the date set for the hearing. Documents are also available online at www.deschutes.org. Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, please call the ADA Coordinator at (541) 388- 6584. t. ,.. REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Adding DCC 9.04.040 to Prohibit * Any Business or Sale of Any Federally * ORDINANCE NO. 2014-008 Controlled Substance in any Deschutes County * Zone Except as Allowed by Federal Law and * * Declaring an Emergency. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") initiated an amendment to Deschutes County Code Title 9 to add Chapter 9.04.040 Controlled Substances; and WHEREAS, after a duly noticed public meeting, on February 27, 2014, the Deschutes County Planning Commission reviewed the amendment and voted five to zero (5-0) to forward the amendment without taking a position to the Board; and WHEREAS, after a duly noticed ced ublic hearing, on March 17, 2014 the Board approved the amendment to Deschutes County Code; and WHEREAS, Section 1 .of this Ordinance is enacted pursuant.to one or more of the following authorities: (1_)The inherent_powers of Deschutes County nursuant.to the Oregon Constitution.and Oregon law; (2) The federal Controlled Substances Act 21_USC 80.:1, Etseg; (3)2014 Ore_gon Senate Bill 1 5531; (_4).2.013 Oregon House Bill 3460;_now,therefore, THE BOARD OF' COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. ADDING. Deschutes County Code Section 9.04.040 Prohibited Substances is added to read as described in Exhibit"A" Section 42. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage. /// PAGE 1 OF 2-ORDINANCE NO.2014-008 Section 3. A copy of this Ordinance shall be forwarded to the Oregon Health Authority_hy regular mail and by any other such means as required ty rule of the Oregon Health Authority. Section 4. SUNSET CI.AUSE. This ordinance is repealed May I 2015. Dated this of , 2014 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON TAMMY BANEY, Chair ANTHONY DeBONE, Vice Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary ALAN UNGER, Commissioner Date of 1st Reading: day of , 2014. Date of 2nd Reading: day of , 2014. Record of Adoption Vote: Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Tammy Baney — Anthony DeBone Alan Unger Effective date: day of , 2014. PAGE 2 OF 2-ORDINANCE NO.2014-008 9.04.040.Controlled Substances A. There is a moratorium on the.operation of_any marijuana dispensary in any area subject to the jurisdiction of Deschutes County. B. As used in this section, -marijuana dispensary' includes any facility that dispenses._marijuana pursuant ORS 475-31.41_or any other provision of Oregon law.- (Ord. 2014-008, §1, 2014) Page 1 of 1 —EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE 2014-008 3/17/2014 Background • 2013:Legislature passed 14B 3460-Oregon Medical Marijuana Act. • AOC:"most unregulated marijuana dispensary program in our nation."Unclear whether cities/counties can ban medical marijuana dispensaries. BOARDOF • LOC:"The Oregon Supreme Court has already noted a preemption COUNTY COMMISSIONERS of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act...unlikely that a court would find that cities must allow or participate in a violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act" Ordinance 2014-008 • 2013-2014:Cities&counties across the state taking various actions Marijuana Dispensaries Prohibition to ban or regulate medical marijuana facilities given legal File No.TA-14-3 uncertainties at the federal&state levels. March 17,2014 • Mid-February Board directed staff to initiate TA-14-3 to ban marijuana businesses&the sale of other federally prohibited substances. Background Ordinance 2014-008 • Feb.20:Planning Commission voted 5-0 to forward TA-14-3 to Board • Deschutes County CodeTitle 9 Public Peace and Welfare:new without taking a position section 9.04.040 • Staff noticed public hearing for March 17 per DCC requirements; Not a land use regulation or decision •published on March 3 • 2014 Legislature:considered various iterations o(SB 1531 • Proposed by emergency(effective immediately): throughout session,passed SB 153 IC at end of the session-effective - 50 153IC Is effectively immediately Immediately - "r protect the public peace,heakh&safety • SB 1531C permits cities/counties to regulate and/or enact a - Clarify immediately this use Is not allowed in rural areas of Deschutes County moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries(moratorium must be in place by May I,2014 until May 1,2015) • Enter case file into the record • March 10: Staff report&new text from AOC posted for Board - COD has received one email consideration based on SB 1531C • March 12:Board work session Language Comparison Board Options Language Presented to Board AOC proposed language • Adopt Ordinance 2014-008(alternative I or 2)by Emergency 9.04.040.Controlled Substances 9,04.040.Controlled Substances • Adopt Ordinance 2014-008(alternative I or 2) The use of any building,structure, A.There is a moratorium on the • Continue the public hearing to a date&time certain location,premises or land for any operation of any marijuana marijuana business or the sale of any dispensary in any area subject to • Deny Ordinance 2014-008 federally controlled substance is the jurisdiction of Deschutes prohibited by Deschutes County County. Code,and is not a permitted or conditional use in any Deschutes 8.As used in this section,'marijuana County zone under Title 18 except dispensary'includes any facility r'a as allowed by federal law, that dispenses marijuana pursuant "K ORS 475.314,or any other provision of Oregon law." 1 V) W c Z .0 7) 0 "3 LE LL o 0 ( ) o a_ m 41-o LA 4r-I 2 rn-ni a) ❑ N � Q CI cc I- n a) c < 0 U c 0- Z U ouco L_co 0 co co f3.. I—Iro ii 2 >— o (73 Z CO 61), 2 rn am Q w , U .e , \7 %. 19 O vl a� '-� 'o to . �� v c >- O b.0 "O O cn U ^ �, to z '� N •A7-:O L. o Po•O '� ct O iv 0 0 © , �Ct (1) O. 0 O U CI *4 cC O • ■,. 0 C ,-co UQ.., . U O c/) E ct N Q p H O '+- U .< c�3 E O E • 0 U c/D al a) -0 I. c.) cc cd A-6., tat) co 0 c.) ;_.1 ,, 4_4 ct.) ,....._ ?? c..) 6.4 .4..., ;-, 0 .., ,-- u Q czt • — $_, .- co co et U U N 0 v (-1-4 O o0 CA ..) U (1) — -0 z bL g • as Q CO Vf *E N c� g N 78 Q) U = 4a ., .,.., '� i •� Q g cu MO O o ›. CD ,:r gc - c �O d -4_) +► u =C © ,_ R cs O O O O O G H -O� +, Q, U c�J Medical Marijuana Facility Moratorium Ordinance Introduction In March, 2014,the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 1531,which purports to restrict local government regulation of medical marijuana facilities to only time place and manner restrictions,' unless a city or county(local jurisdiction) enacts2 an ordinance declaring a moratorium and notifies the Oregon Health Authority of such moratorium by May 1, 2014. SB 1531 limits the moratorium to May 1, 2015,. after which it is replaced by the time, place, and manner restrictions. To aid local jurisdictions in implementing local decisions,the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) and the Association of Oregon Counties(AOC)have prepared this model moratorium ordinance. The model is not a substitute for legal advice. Any local jurisdiction considering a moratorium should consult with legal counsel to obtain advice regarding the advantages, disadvantages, limitations, and applicability of such an ordinance to local circumstances. This sample is intended to be a starting, not an ending point, for any jurisdiction considering a moratorium on medical marijuana facilities. The law in this area is complex, and jurisdictions might face unintended consequences by simply adopting the following model without adequate legal counsel. This model is predicated on the understanding that the moratorium represents an exercise of the jurisdiction's home rule authority and police powers to prohibit certain activities within the territorial limits of the city or county.3 Pursuant to SB 1531, the moratorium has the additional effect of removing the immunity provisions of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act for anyone operating a medical marijuana facility in an area of a moratorium, notwithstanding that they may be a medical marijuana card holder or previously registered with the Oregon Health Authority under ORS 475.314. Jurisdictions that adopted a moratorium type ordinance prior to the effective date of SB 1531 are advised to consult with legal counsel to determine the adequacy of the prior enactment and its relationship to SB 1531. Finally, it is important to note the jurisdictions that adopt a moratorium must notify the Oregon Health Authority. The Oregon Health Authority is currently developing a process by which local jurisdictions may provide such notice. LOC and AOC are monitoring that issue and will provide additional guidance when known. Model Ordinance AN ORDINANCE OF THE {CITY/COUNTY} OF {NAME} DECLARING A MORATORIUM ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA FACILITIES, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY WHEREAS,the Oregon Legislature enacted House Bill 3460 (2013)which requires the Oregon Health Authority to develop and implement a process to register medical marijuana facilities; WHEREAS, House Bill 3460 (2013) directed that persons who operate or are employed by a registered medical marijuana facility would enjoy immunity from state prosecution; WHEREAS, the issue of whether a local government believes a certain type of business should operate within its jurisdictional limits is a local government decision, the enforcement of which is subject to the general and police powers of that jurisdiction; WHEREAS,the Oregon Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1531 (2014)which removes immunity from state prosecution for a person who is responsible for or employed by a registered medical marijuana facility located in an area subject to the jurisdiction of a city or county that enacts a moratorium prohibiting the operation of a medical marijuana facility; and WHEREAS,the {City Council/County Board of Commissioners} believes it is in the bests interests of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of{City/County Name} to enact such a moratorium prohibiting the operation of a medical marijuana facilities within the jurisdictional boundaries of{City/County Name}; NOW THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, THE {CITY/COUNTY NAME} ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: MORATORIUM DECLARED. The {City/County} of{Name} hereby prohibits the operation of any medical marijuana facility in any area subject to the jurisdiction of{City/County} of {Name}. As used in this section, "medical marijuana facility" includes any facility that dispenses marijuana pursuant to ORS 475.314 or any other provision of Oregon law. [DURATION OF MORATORIUM. The moratorium imposed by this ordinance shall be effective until May 1, 2015, unless rescinded sooner.] ENFORCEMENT. The {title of public official, i.e., chief of police, sheriff} is charged with enforcement of the moratorium. REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE. The remedies available under Senate Bill 1531 (2014) for a violation of the moratorium imposed by this ordinance are not exclusive of any other remedies available under any applicable federal, state or local law. It is within the discretion of the {City/County} of{Name} to seek cumulative remedies for a violation of the moratorium imposed by this ordinance. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage. 5 r SB 1531 is predicated on the assumption that the preemption in SB 863(adopted in the 2013 Special Session and codified at ORS 633.738)includes medical marijuana. SB 863,known as the so called"Genetic Modified Organism (GMO)Bill,"preempts local regulations of certain agricultural products. Specifically,SB 1531 states that, notwithstanding the preemption in SB 863,local governments may impose reasonable time,place,and manner regulations on medical marijuana. Likewise,SB 1531 assumes that HB 3460(the so called"dispensary bill" codified at ORS 475.314)may preempt local authority to regulate medical marijuana facilities. However,it is debatable whether SB 863 or HB 3460 indeed preempt local control of medical marijuana,and if so,whether that preemption is,in turn,preempted by federal law under the analysis set out by the Oregon Supreme Court in Emerald Steel Fabricators,Inc.v.Bureau of Labor and Industries,348 Or. 159,230 P.3d 518(2010). Consequently,local jurisdictions are encouraged to consult with their legal counsel to obtain an opinion on the relationship of SB 863 and HB 3460 to SB 1531 and federal law,to determine whether the jurisdiction is limited to only"reasonable time, place,and manner"restrictions,either without or after a moratorium, 2 SB 1531 expressly uses the term"enact." The Oregon Court of Appeals has held that the term"enact"refers to the date upon which the governing body took the final action required under its rules,and not necessarily its effective date. American Energy v.City of Sisters,250 Or App 243,280 P3d 985,rev den 352 Or 377,290 P3d 813(2012). In order to make the May 1,2014,deadline,cities that desire to impose a moratorium should examine their rules and determine whether they are able to suspend certain rules to expedite the adoption of the ordinance. 3 As an exercise of the jurisdiction's police powers,this model is separate and distinct from a land use moratorium that operates to suspend a local jurisdiction's land use actions for a period of time. Consequently,as drafted,this model prohibits the operation of a medical marijuana facility,but does not suspend the application of business license or land use ordinances,which could already restrict the issuance of a license or permit if the proposed business or land use activity is unlawful under local,state,or federal law. Nonetheless,local jurisdictions should consult with their legal counsel on the applicability of ORS 197.610 to their situation. 4 Local jurisdictions will want to carefully consider whether to put a sunset provision in the ordinance. It may be that the Legislature in 2015 extends or removes the sunset imposed by SB 1531. In addition,jurisdictions that take the position that neither SB 863 (2013)nor HB 3460(2013)preempts local regulation of medical marijuana facilities, or that take the position that any such state preemption of local authority is itself preempted by federal law under the overridden by federal law under the analysis set out by the Oregon Supreme Court in Emerald Steel Fabricators,348 Or. 159,and that desire to maintain a moratorium beyond May 1,2015 should not include this sunset provision in the ordinance. s Although SB 1531 requires a governing body desiring to impose a moratorium to enact the ordnance by May 1, 2014,this ordinance includes an emergency clause to make the ordinance effective upon adoption. iefc z-� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING y { "- REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest 0 ri' ;.n C C Date 3 / Name je,c(-; Address _ � "r S-e I ► Phone #s 64 330-- t-4 (4 3 E-mail address es c i ceL, c1.&k. (ock is � ? In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ,fit Yes No Q geec-1111004 { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest /17,7. �, �; <4,1 a '4f/e_:._ Date, 3 - /7-t Name :�G,O oar' Address Z )/1-) r ; riif ,$Z r {/ ,% Phone#s .q/- 3i ) - y 3 E-mail address In Favor — Neutral/Undecided fAll Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? n Yes O� rEs co` BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest /t't 4` U ,L�; � i r 6'21 Date 3 /7// Name ' GL ji ?. C Address I 2 3 Y'` Lie C') evz. :( Phone#s E-mail address e r ( me ( c7 Ti In Favor 1 Neutral/Undecided WOpposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? trYes No �vTEs c0 g' , { BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest y 1 r)L\ „ °A ,.,pY; r i c.,s Date _3' 17 Name c c- r Address D 7 1/01 I ; Ceetk., ., GI 65:4-J. 'LL Phone #s ,54-! 3 '` 5' ? t` E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided [ Opposed 7- ems . .C.P1 r.-.. Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes 171/ 1-o 1 0-T ES C Ak 6 0"04.0k: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest I / r; M (5� v/4,/ ate 3 — J 7.— / Name e OA 0`'3 R u Address 1 7 I - fi fci; /( r /6/-4) 6, E ,AJ,h. C/ 7 7) Phone#s 6-1Z _ 74f3 E-mail address CL a //R 4 0 ) EY' 0_ M. nJ 0611 n In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes NNo co BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest /,9 _/ Date 77/ Zd/y Name 7/.4-(41/ / I $- Address //53 //AA/ ( 4// ,$ z f Z Phone #s S%/ rd 3y E-mail address 44/411.3t%ti S Om(`G us1 PS)0,4 JIn Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? I I Yes J No �• BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest k.e. c 4 I m J - , r, /r";c X,y,5 Date 3-1 ; v Name En 2 ,� ► Address / 3 3 cc ;r C Phone#s ;°</</la i 3 E-mail address 0. I AC In Favor I I Neutral/Undecided Ii Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? H Yes [ No v-rEs w BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING -._ -:- REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest + �,, e pet.i ( L 0'j5 Date � f Name //ii j /jZ 4/—fit; \i� Address %O .5- '36e--- hie-7 4-5' Phone#s y/- 3 S --- /7--z9 r E-mail address I1 In Favor xi Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No I o BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest Nitwit/cc(yet 1,_,,, -I -53 Date :�/f // tt J Name ki-dc Address 7 (U N)J\) t=e cAe i. s 1- Phone #s 5 K l - G 3 7 - Z 36, E-mail address fl �..t k hum [ ( 0,6(( — In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? — Yes ‘F.1 No 6 rte. k BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest 4.1 /7 ZCI4.1JL -.#0„14: Date_ ,7/i//zevz,./. Name (-4.) 4-4 ZSr4,ti��,2 Address (fl /f T-c27 Phone #s J - 5e-02 - CJ 5-7 E-mail address c J F .6i / 'r C_ "e,/ . C?esv. In Favor Neutral/Undecided R Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? I Yes .. No I J-CIEB fl fA w,' BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest 0 cificc.Lt---, Date/'-n44-- /V s CA-77;Name � �- 1 i Address bdZ7() 41- PI /t:i -0 LP ' ./ C) Phone #s, b 1/- ycPd ` V 7 7 E-mail address y1/1 q-rw c L 6? C-c, c A) eT. c 47 14, In Favor Neutral/Undecided _ r_ Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes X No J' �v-res CO N oeec- ��' BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING �`' REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest �1�1�j v., r u 9 0 5 V W C.4 O n Date )' I} ( ( 4 Name -]----e Q ✓ti.h W Address 11-1 5 1- Nk.I C t, Ai. 19 I 4 Nik j Phone#s --`H '. c'k 9 c1 0 5 E- ail address J e r e-'�( e 5 l ° o ''"-- ".i (( eA i to -1 a v,inotlit MP, K LI-Li o nl !k pj,, S( n/ S FM/ o f M to / r i t um In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? "Yes No 01-Es 4 0 r, � BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING ff REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest ;, Date Name l )/Gh i ( Address Y t/ `.: Phone #s E-mail address / . r- {!L.- (F2 In Favor Neutral/Undecided — Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? es No �uTes 0 Q� �z� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING -< REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest /11 i/ a Date '/ ) Name G 444. fAii;/4/e-f---A Address ! / i/t-e Phone #s sl// - C/ p/i 6 6S �� / / Cf E-mail address nIn Favor Neutral/Undecided *Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes iiO - o/, .1-T. L'p r;f 'W. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest FILE NuMBC TA- ILI- 3 Date 171t PoiLl Name J1-ReAky L CHArT ) (A-54A-t)lft Pre>5 GAL Address 70;110 EMPIRE' Morfl1F Culm E I Phone#s 541.21 , 2315 E-mail address l 0 CAS(A-0A- IA SS CotA In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? n Yes 'No a--Es c fe'elc-Of .{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest iiitic JvDta bpsitituttA tzor Date g / Name Jae- `: ° et, eh-,1 tal\- m Address 6(30 5-,. S 2/I..c s- /L G( k3e--ftdi '''/r, ? -1 ,../ 9 - Phone#s sr / jg. E-mail address ;-a e,..ihtaelt. rf::) 'AAA, , ge,k1.,, In Favor L 1 Neutral/Undecided I Opposed Sub itting written docWrients as part of testimony? Yes Y n No o Rmz{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest •t,;,i\9;J v vv pQ - Date ► ` Name . r.fa Address /it 7 �-� .SS r`��' Phone #s `f' ( 5 7 E-mail address j n ? ;,� 1/1" r;\ I v Y'��, y � P. In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes nil" No -Eta Q 14Ø .{ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest _ ry _ Date /7720/V Name //,./11 ,`.a 414A-,) Address // 5P% / /14 /WC_ Phone #s Y/-,2 go^ 22/ E-mail address do/AA- //e0 }5 X G44,A In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No i alr , ` Za BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest Date Name :; r Address Phone#s E-mail address TIIn Favor n Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes f J No o •fery BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest s^ vvA.cA t IS � t(-t e Date 3 /17 l 14- Name \o SPac wit Address 6 30 z 5 5 ( -t e,N- ECM, Of, 1770 Phone #s 541 /3ez_ /3 E-mail address 6r�.k vv 4194 vtAzt c ( 0 IXIn Favor Neutral/Undecided I I Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes n No Good morning! I am the Prevention Coordinator for Deschutes County. Our staff is responsible for working with the community to implement what we know works to prevent substance use/abuse, problem gambling, bullying and suicide. Today, I am representing Health Services and the health concerns that my agency has with marijuana. We are very concerned about our kids accessing marijuana and other drugs. Most marijuana use begins between the teen years to the early 20's, when the brain is still developing. This is of particular concern in Oregon, which has the highest rates in the Nation for 12-17 year old marijuana use (2). Let me say that again, there are more 12-17 year olds in Oregon using marijuana than in any other state. This is a problem in multiple ways. First, we now know the brain isn't fully developed until the mid-twenties. When psychoactive drugs are introduced when the brain is still developing it interrupts normal brain function and, depending on the level of use, can permanently change its structure and function. These changes contribute to diminished physical and academic performance such as skipping school and poor grades. Secondly, we know that when people begin using at a young age they have an increased risk of having a problem with addiction in adulthood. In the case of marijuana the addiction rates are 1 in 6 for persons under 18 years old compared to 1 in 11 amongst older adults. Nationally, 68% of all medically necessary drug treatment admissions for youth ages 12-17 are for marijuana. The current medical marijuana program and the rules governing dispensaries are not strong enough to protect our community's young people. In fact, in many respects the rules disregard MOST of what we know will protect kids. The current rules DO NOT do enough. We have seven recommendations to decrease youth access and use of marijuana: 1. Reduce the availability of marijuana through bans or density limits. When a drug is made more available whether it is legal or illegal, youth rates of use increase. 2. Ensure that packaging, marketing and product placement within and outside a business does not influence minors in any way. This means more than placing a "minors not allowed" sign in the window, but also restricting how and where products are marketed. The more our kids see a marijuana leaf advertised the more likely they will begin to assume that 'everyone uses marijuana', when we know that everyone does not. PERCEPTION will drive their reality. We can do more to ensure that their reality is accurate. 3. Prohibit THC infused products that are attractive to youth (for example, lollipops, soda, gummy bears). Last week there were two news reports about kids giving other kids candy and only after consuming the candy did they find out the candy was infused with marijuana. These stories came out of Washington and Colorado where the laws are weak regarding marijuana infused edibles. 4. Require credentialing and training for employees who dispense marijuana similar to pharmacy technicians and staff. 5. Prohibit employees from working under the influence - similar to restrictions placed on alcohol servers. We don't allow people to serve alcohol while they are intoxicated because mistakes are made. Why would we allow OMMP card holding staff to smoke while they dispense medical marijuana? 6. Provide consistent information to customers at the point of sale regarding the risks of youth marijuana use and recommendations for keeping drugs in a secure location. 7. Support prevention education, strategies, and policies that will uphold successful and resilient youth and communities. As your substance abuse prevention program, we are charged with this work, but we cannot do it alone. The best prevention ONLY works when our laws, education, community awareness and enforcement are in sync with each other. The decision you are contemplating today would make great strides toward keeping our community healthy. It would support our kids. Thank you for your consideration. vTes eo I Deschutes County Health Services Q/e Youth Marijuana Prevention Agency Issue Brief Presented to BoCC on 3/17/2014 Public and Increased availability of any legal or illegal drug will increase use amongst youth.1 Behavioral Health The current medical marijuana program and rules governing dispensaries are not Position strong enough to protect our community's kids. Most marijuana use begins Statement between the teen years to the early 20's, when the brain is still developing.2 When psychoactive drugs enter the brain, they interrupt normal brain functioning and change the brains structure and performance. These changes are what impact physical and academic performance and can lead to numerous unwelcomed outcomes in adolescence as well as habits in adulthood.3 Marijuana use is often mixed with other drugs complicating the effects.4 Supporting 8th Grader Substance Use Rates5 Evidence 30 24.2 25 9.6 _.._ m 15 -- 10.5 12.2 ■Deschutes Co. ; 10 8.1 8.7 4.5 •State 5 2.81.8 0 - Smoked Alcohol Binge Marijuana Rx Illicit Cigarettes Alcohol • 9.2%of Deschutes County 11th graders who report using marijuana received it from a medical marijuana card holder.5 • 68%of all medically necessary drug treatment admissions for youth ages 12-17 are for marijuana.6 • Oregon ranks number one in the Nation for past month marijuana use amongst youth, 12-17 years of age.' • Higher addiction rates among those who start using marijuana at younger ages. Rates for persons under 18 are 1 in 6 compared to 1 in 11 amongst older adults.8 • Increased THC(the intoxicating chemical) levels increase the risk of dependence.9 THC levels have more than doubled since the 198015.10 • Residents of states with medical marijuana had marijuana abuse/dependence rates almost twice as high than states without such laws.11 • Our Nation's experiences with alcohol and tobacco show that for every dollar gained in taxes,we spent$10 on social costs.12 1. Reduce availability through bans or a per capita dispensary limits. When a Recommendations drug is made more available whether legally or illegally in a community, youth for improved access and abuse increases. youth marijuana 2. Ensure that packaging, marketing and placement within and outside a business prevention does not influence minors. Consider similar approaches to alcohol and tobacco. 3. Prohibit THC infused products that are attractive to youth. For example, lollipops, soda,gummy bears. 4. Require credentialing and training for employees who dispense medical marijuana, similar to pharmacy technicians and staff. 5. Prohibit employees from working under the influence similar to restrictions placed on alcohol servers. 6. Provide consistent information to customers at the point of sale on the risks of youth marijuana use and ways to keep drugs in a secure location. 7. Prohibit dispensaries from locations where kids are known to frequent. 8. Support prevention education to the community about marijuana and other drugs and how to uphold successful and resilient youth. 'Hawkins and Catalano,Risk and Protective Factor Theory. 2Hall,W&Degenhardt,L. Adverse health effects of non-medical cannabis use. The Lancet;vol.374,October 17,2009. 3Drugs,Brains,and Behavior: The Science of Addiction. National Institute on Drug Abuse.Published April 2007. Revised August 2010. 4Hall,W.International Journal of Drug Control Policy 20(2009)458-466. 52012 Deschutes County Oregon Student Wellness Survey Data. 60ffice of National Drug Control Policy(2010). 'SAMHSA,Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality,NSDUH,2009-2010,revised March 2012. 8Budney,A.J.,Roffman,R.,Stephens,R.5.,Walker,D.2007."Marijuana dependence and its treatment."Addict Sci Clin Pract,Vol 4, Issue 1,pp 4-10. 9Hall WD,Pacula RL. Cannabis use and dependence: public health and public policy. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003. '°Meserve,J.and Ahler,MM(2009,May 14).Marijuana potency surpasses 10 percent,US says. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/14/marijuana.potencv/index.htm I?i ref=allsearch. 11Cerda,M et al.(in press). Medical marijuana laws in 50 states: investigating the relationship between state legalization of medical marijuana and marijuana use,abuse and dependence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. Found at http://www.columbia.edu i-dsh2pdf/MedicalMarijuana.odf. 12Rehm J,Mathers C,Popova S,Thavorncharoensap M,Teerawattananon Y,Patra J.2009 Jun 27."Global burden of disease and injury and economic cost attributable to alcohol use and alcohol-use disorders."Lancet;373(9682):2223-33. ` -cis siikt u Z HEALTH SERVICES P.O. Box 6005, Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 LI 1 130 NW Harriman, Suite A, Bend, Oregon 97701 Public Health (541) 322-7400, FAX (541) 322-7465 Behavioral Health (541) 322-7500, FAX (541) 322-7565 www.deschutes.org Substance Abuse Prevention in Deschutes County Jessica Jacks, Deschutes County Prevention Coordinator 1130 NW Harriman, Suite A, Bend, OR 97701 541-330-4632 iessica.iacks @deschutes.org Substance Abuse Prevention Coaltions: • Bend Area Substance Abuse Prevention Coalition ' Serving the greater Bend area a;► l,,, Contact: Nick Stevenson, Certified Prevention Specialist ,j;,;,c Arno ';1.1I,,,,,r1'0 .. I>rew,r lInn r.,,(,r c/o 1130 NW Harriman, Suite A, Bend, OR 97701 541-322-7534 nicholas @deschutes.org • Meth Action Coalition M iiwwll... l Ai: T 1 9D I ,I Serving all of Central Oregon c 1 T,6 !:;U ,11 Contact: Barbara Stoefen, Board President i WORKING TO REDUCE DRUG AND info@methaction.org ALCOHOL ABUSE IN CENTRAL OREGON www.methaction.org • Think Again ParentS (TAPS) of South County Serving Sunriver, LaPine and Gilchrist ThinkAgainParentS Contact: Cindy Jarrett, Interim Board President Stestaws AbaseLkwa►tlanTeamolScamBoyar 541-322-5517 www.tapssouthcountv.org • The Shared Future Coalition Contact:Julie Spackman, Certified Prevention Specialist '' c/o 1130 NW Harriman, Suite A, Bend, OR 97701 541-388-6619 iulie.spackman @deschutes.org c u Its■ C O A L I T I O N www.sharedfuturecoalition.org M. Our Mission: To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community. Examples of THC-infused products attractive to youth I *Pk ■,, , , "'4P,'„„t.,■ "'"' 04444" (0"'" "11444, 9.1111117:1*NalT47N HIGH 6.11 514(....KERS- 41' Sour Gummi gears « 6- ' i 111441 la lila 111 t j NA, 4461101 owl ■:., .0, ' 1 . 0, \ 440* * ''` ■ , ,0 ' cc,''..4 ■t ' , '.'., 4"1","1■,"'", 4 1 .* ' ,',"1 , - t. ..4. Gummi Bears Suckers , . ,... , s■ 11 V :f . . ., . -+ IF ,• .. 4- I Iliti ••pef • , I '1°''e ' ••••-• ,,, (3). A.211,414,„ '. P 9 OA 4,4444414,,', I DIKE , " '''''' , '1 p ' . I AVM Ot lik. , ........ — .. ._,....._............„ Ai&A. Cream Bars ''46 Candy Bars Cotton Candy E i 1 1 1 , f ' , 1 1 h ..k. . • ;:' 1 / Beyond Bo - 1.4 Bovead Bomb . _Hinme to,p Afri,*•1 ,- ' 1 ;;;.-, It1,1 'atrtS ' ) # tt "%I":.■ ' k'i ' C' )• 1 ,,,. Ae'..- .4, ,; qipTRENt 1 ,t.srp—. maws, u, .,.., .... un ( Toaster Treats Sodas -1 i-\ i-1 AsNrociation of '.4\. )'•N... Ore4on Counties :ti r, `y�l ` LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST PROHIBITION , 4,,..o�4.,..4-1-4:+ �,r Boa ` 121 Mystic lwer,ue. PJIc•dfc,rd. M.nti.r(hL.rSetts 07.155 Tell. 781 39:3 6985 Fix: I81 391 2964 ,nferi-f lt•dp cc vnvw leap cc ''x : ;z . Executive Director, Major Neill Franklin, Maryland, USA BOARD 01 DIRECTORS. Deschutes Co. OR Testimony—Inge F ryklund,JD, Phi), March 17, 2014 Lieutenant Jack A.Cole 3oa1 d Chair&1 reasurei - Masnachusetts,USA 1. 1 represent LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). LEAP represents Captain Peter Christ vice Chair,New York.LISA well over a hundred thousand police, judges, prosecutors, prison officials Prosecutor James E.Gierach and supporters in 120 countries. Our position is that drugs (including Se'cretary Chicago Illinois,USA n,°■,:er David sratzer tobacco and alcohol) exist in the world—with all of the positive and Van Louver, nu S`_°''flat"a'Canada negative effects of the substances themselves. Illegality adds severe Deputy Chief Stephen Downing i cr.Angeles,California,USA negative collateral consequences on top of any inherently negative effects. ft.Commander Diane Goldstein As we found out during Prohibition of Alcohol (1920-1933) illegality leads Redondo Reach.California,USA Ms.Alice A.Huffman to crime and corruption and a lack of quality control. President California NAACP,USA Judge Maria Lucia Karam 2. The best way to have some control over drugs—including alcohol and. Rio de Janeiro,Brazil Intelligence Officer Annie Machan tobacco as well as marijuana—is to legalize and regulate. This brings the UK Security Service MIS,Gcrrmany drugs out of the shadows, puts cartels out of business, and allows potency Captain Leigh Maddox 13dltirnufe.Maryland,USA and quality standardization. Dispensaries allow patients to have access to Special Agent Terry Nelson drugs of known potency and pesticide free. `Felling patients to grow their al;■,,,TUNa:,,L,;,:, l ieutenant Tony Ryan own is like telling someone with an infection to take some mold and try to Tuscan AMSona,USA produce penicillin. Corrections Superintendent Richard Van Wickler 3. 'l'he issue before the Council today is a fairly narrow one—whether to have N,,w I lampshire,USA a 1-year moratorium on marijuana dispensaries. Dispensaries are already ADVISORY BOARD legal in Oregon as well as in 19 other states. (14 other states are Mr.Romesh Rhattacharji r.,,,nr r r>r,,,(=,,r Doll, Inr,i., considering legislation this year.) These dispensaries would supply Chief Coroner'Vince Cain I;,.I (::,,,e; „ Sr,,, r;L,CFnclY11, ,1\1I products only to people who are already authorized by a doctor. Senator Larry Campbell 4. Authorizing the dispensaries means they would be in the community where F orn,<•r May,, ref Val c.o∎∎v r Nv RCNIP. \,an,r,nvrr,,driddd the Council and other residents can see how they are functioning. When Justice Kenneth Crispin H,., ' „F;mrr,J,:fi,F my kids were in high school, I liked having the group hang out at my "y AN ""' house--then I knew what they were doing. Without first hand information, Officer Hans van DIA', Ho Ne t,nn I 1) 1 1>r,li Union.' r:IFr,t rumors and fears drive decision-making. nI I (;Jan N,tl 1lartl I Mr. ref Edwards 5. If the Council is worried about how this will work out, there are choices r.Ca ,r�,�,r , ,,�,,,-.,: 1 ar,::,F.a„1.<,�;,�, RFC,;�,,,, rage Warren W.Eginton other than a 1-year prohibition. For example, give licenses for a year or General Gustavo de Greiff two. Give preferences to local businesses whose money will stay in the I 017,.,,Anar ay(,rne,,A ,-oiornni;■ Governor Gary E.Johnson community. rnr n,..r(krven,or oP N,:a.hl v.xi;,:. u•;A Judge.John L.Kane 6. While the Council certainly has the authority to prohibit dispensaries. a question as with any piece of legislation is whether it is really the right Justice C Ross Lander S < ( S� ,1 i-- thing to do and what message it sends. Prohibition would be sending a Justice Ketil Lund message to those who are authorized to purchase that we don't want you R,i.'i F.,111E(nur,.;uhrice.i i•:In Norv..:ry sherifr sill Masters here. This includes cancer patients and those with migraine or other I,,,;rf ,,,,,SI,,,r,el Lou„ty,C elor,,do,USA intractable pain, and men and women veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan Chief Joseph McNamara . t.I-lice L l I Ir t-dlirom n,LISA suffering from PTSD. "Don't come to live here or move out if you are Chief Norm Stamper already here—because we will force you to drive elsewhere to get the drug h.et.Police I.I,Ief °ca[IIo wdyiiin,:Inn 1ISA Mr.Eric Sterling you need." That's not a great message for them, and for tourism, it doesn't i n (.1,1,1$11 I;stl,e I'd icy ,Jatiort ,�, l 11l USA show Deschutes County as a welcoming or caring place. Mr.Thomas P.Sullivan Panner,!r•nn,•.,rt Pim 1,11/' L:hicago,Ininols,USA Judge Robert Sweet US Cisn''.n:C..0'dl'I!,ad,.IV,Now Y,,rk NSA Chief Francis Wilkinson 7. `There have been several objections raised: a. "Children could get pot." This seems highly unlikely. The experience of every place that has allowed medical marijuana is that business owners arc super anxious to keep their noses clean. Selling to kids would ruin the business. It is also interesting that children are cited as a concern. When drugs were first made illegal in 1914, the legislative history shows two concerns: in the south, "cocaine crazed Negroes raping white women," and "Chinamen in San Francisco enticing white women to use opium." I.e., these laws were to protect my demographic! Kids were never mentioned. b. "Federal law prohibits." This is the start of a conversation, not the end. If that were the end of the matter, we could shut down the California legislature and let the federal government make all decisions. But, that is not the American federal system. We aren't residents of some generic "federal" government; we are residents of individual states and we speak through our elected representatives. There would be no reason for Congress to repeal the drug laws if there was no indication that people in the various states cared. As the U.S. Supreme Court has said, the states are the laboratories of democracy. They can try out different approaches—such as on alcohol or pot laws—and sec what works. Right now, everyone is watching Colorado and. Washington. We do have an interesting short-term problem with inconsistency between state and federal laws, and I expect to see a lot of back and forth until it is resolved. We are seeing that already. Soon after Colorado and Washington legalized pot for all users, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that going after small users would not be a federal priority. When pot businesses in Colorado were shown on NBC news carrying bags of cash to pay utility bills, Attorney General Holder announced (1/23/14) that federally chartered banks could accept deposits from firms that were legal under state law. The Department of Justice has also issued some guidelines to Washington State. In view of these mixed messages, the Ordinance language not permitting dispensaries "except as allowed by federal law"just invites litigation. c. "Marijuana is Schedule 1, along with heroin, so it must be really bad." (Cocaine is only Schedule 2.) Schedule 1 criteria according to the tWA are a) no currently accepted medical use, b) high potential for abuse, and c) high potential fir dependence. President Nixon's own Commission in 1972 rejected this categorization as contrary to fact, but for political reasons, Nixon rejected their advice. Obviously doctors in 20 states have concluded that there are accepted medical uses. Imagine a federal law saying that the West had no drought. That would not change facts on the ground. 8. Permitting local dispensaries keeps your options open. If there are future problems, you can change the law. Be honest about what you are doing. All the ordinance does is deprive Deschutes residents of something they can legally have under Oregon law. Don't chase away citizens who could contribute to the development of the County. Sincerely, Inge Fryklund. up Z _� E H cn I 1 iUi u ._ U Ii1., Iii ...'O ,/ . cd C4 .O d e� U Q 444104C" a) s-1 4° O b 4, '" xw cn y", �, o 'O� at, 3 c 8 cd , , o - a 0 0 e` G C a. "7 by �..�,' • - i ca ) V n ai. . a ,` O aj b to 4J c i cd ° c7 O O 5A + a `' '',,! �`. 1- f"' �"' � C"r N CV 7...-:C .^ 7°- �1,... ^ VI 00 '.L ,.�� V O ,� ¢C p„�O yam, 1I1 ; fluI N t3H 4 ra " '"'"'�"'"I.= t) •L.L.' al a.) a: •— 0 L, .73' c LJ ...-.1 1 '-',,,&) •ei.; 461) 't-' '—'4: ctj .15 6 ,4 < .-, 0 F_, 4)4 if..\:_.„ ri.) _,o v, '0 a o op ° a� n LEI L C/] -, v ° s. r ),, -o LL1 ct a�i s U O c� 'Z :2 O b c0C S'] c3 b ,, —� O 'a ,_ Q O A O Q, v' 03 N � �. �l U co op o 7•' U O c= va 7,•O� �' v p - O c3- 00 `n �, s- - cC O O o 'd O -• = O V = O C> O 0 v s.. �^ s' 0 w �D Q s E s .1.) N 4-, 0 N C) a) VI Ct .0 +' J) h_ 'O C) i-. 3 O v b d 'O c •s.ap , i O a _ � — d CI vL d , 41_, . N 4 r _cn cU '-' ST7 c� -^ yam, p c7�� �S" O P.•— -b -b E 51 'd �] [A N Q- r ate. Q �, 'd 7-, = a O "N `�' "� � cd +.+ 4v rn U fJ --� U .. -1.-,�j 3 U o N O FJ 1 N O I V W x N O d mo O N O°- N'd ,w d ,= = ° [ ^ era 0. "3:3 4..+ cd E � - Cl) (-) cd "d d a; . = a) c 74 cc o p ai 4 tr. Q' c U o c-• to a Qt t- cd tau a) W s. ° ° •° i I4 e) i. cn de O W ++ ^d �" '-+�+ ai ice. 'C7 �" O 0 es $.4 iv Ve 0.) V © 0 1- a.) 0 Q.) tO CD --, o to Oo aC C n •r : m a) o* a Q a �• 7+ C Q) o 7 � "0 6, C/] z ° .S b 0 ❑ •.r CV ... Cle � cA U ° y 0 pd g w o = � 6 . b H � 0 " Z • n o o 'b o d t a o a Z d U C/) N a W P- a Q � t° o ° a O ° a) oon W a o o Q-1 ) 3 o b1A 3 -0 7 tA• ca 0 fi a+3 'd "ED ed a) .g a, o cd .O a, s.. .._, 9 Ho ❑ cd Q p . . •_ . . O p 3� - N 0,0 'd tu meg '6 •> chi •C t1.0 C4 c0, cdd , v- °O b cOOi 0 43 Cle °) Ht n cd ° rte, A a 4� ••p ,5 a, N � ,U r••� . o N -0 a U s-, vi b 7:31) 0 a 0 : nn c+-, 0 U ° OI N o A -0 < N ea a) g� c+ o m v d W a 0., A _ � ? co . . o d d 5 U a °ad o b a ? ° U° r .2 o �y ° " `� a• ; 'b :A O P•1 a O U 0 N y c4 V L a] 0 cd bA - A v , �D, ° a) '° 6 o ..c9 O0 -c ' w d a E g o d d ° o 00 ° a) • p, bA o g - ca p s..1 'd b O 0 o q i cd u d g, O d c4. A c4 ' d a a.) . 6 a os do 8 ', 1 A a ,� -`8 ,W-1 cad 2 , .0 .a �-1 . . rd a0, , `a4 p. U al .- �-1 aa)i c0i ° o c; E -d a)0 co Za) a �; � d ® ° �, �• P. Few d a) Et W 0 = aa' O +� cs,, o 0. ,d ° a) `"=1 • a, o o c en •d > o . o = V r to 5 p 0-,,,..,5 0 H e. U V C b 9,.. d V1 04 a O 66 y� ci' U y � ,0 cd Cn C. ~ A Q" "a r er) O" � .i. O a b }- cd r. g CI .. rl CT E C] 'II .- 2 E a) l 41" >l 2 .2 -... o0 k" O . ° O N 'C a,, c::, en U O L O v N . O U rn a C a) N O,_ a 4,4 crl c> d a . .)E ) iih 0 e f1, cd a) . 0 s•-• a • 5 'd z = O +' W '+, dq 0. c, " ° .5 cn co O y • t O , O A+ •cam ° yq ° cd a .. mow I. — " N F. -, O . . (11.1'4-;' 7 ‘F, � O we t-.43 - e 0 5 cd ,., m 5 c� O f -o 0., @ H o .5w E u, a. •� E x L E 0., Wti , a u ( ( - Peter Gutowsky From: Nick Lelack Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:34 PM To: Peter Gutowsky Subject: Fwd: opinion for meeting 10 a.m. Monday March 17 Nick Lelack, AICP Deschutes County Community Development Director 541-639-5585 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Tom Anderson <Tom.Anderson@deschutes.org> Date: March 14, 2014 at 11:10:42 AM PDT To: Nick Lelack<Nick.Lelack(2i deschutes.org>, Laurie Craghead <Laurie.C raghead@deschutes.org> Subject: FW: opinion for meeting 10 a.m. Monday March 17 Original Message From: Kathy Gilbert [mailto:gilbe @bendbroadband.com] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 8:22 AM To: Board Subject: opinion for meeting 10 a.m. Monday March 17 To the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, Because 1 work and cannot attend the public meeting scheduled for March 17 at 10 a.m. for input regarding possible ban on medical marijuana dispensaries operating outside city limits, I would like to express my opinion within this e-mail rather than appearing publically. I am 64 years old and a registered voter in Deschutes County. I would like to express my opinion against such a ban. I believe all commerce related to medical marijuana should be free from restriction anywhere in Deschutes County, both inside and outside city limits. Thank you. Kathleen Gilbert 1951 NW Oak Avenue Redmond, OR 97756 phone: 541-526-0056 1 — /ire — Adt7,5 )3/.7 47//7/f.-ei/V Ocfr,‹ /,7 Q/ihM A46 12c..-173- 4.16 TN / e. c/-10 c7.1 e)c.0,41-77-40. 0/ -5,"" „Seler44 /J /1742) 4IS417 L-5ex_er- 4/04_ a nea-fe'245/ jvv Aro#4 F"-P___L6-4-a 4 figLcel .11 r $.0 ff, CC.) 727P 4.4 ao G-24.7p-art,e orzre. 1-)4149-, 4:5teeev. „icsei. 0— A.4 0■,017 _191:;410 P4"/t/ As C.-.41"- -, A (2) #27- C.4.)/tor je• ay.. et? o /• 41: /7z-/4 A- c- ) '5 4-&115,■"t 4P-- A5. 4- C ,› n 7z A Atee,' 44) /A 4 -14:47 pe-e.v_s/ 4) yi Op", 0.447 .27e4r, Deschutes County Medical Cannabis Stakeholders Meeting Join other medical cannabis patients, providers, and concerned community members to talk about medical cannabis in Deschutes County and statewide.We know the best outcomes for patients come from having a well-informed and active grassroots base of support. Come talk with your neighbors about how we can protect and expand safe and legal access to medical cannabis locally. • Local bans on medical cannabis facilities • Protecting patients from discrimination • Law enforcement encounters • Effective citizen advocacy • Regulation, taxation, and more... When:6-7:30 PM Tuesday,April 1,2014 Where: Environmental Center, 16 NW Kansas Ave. Bend,OR 97701 The meeting will be hosted by Americans for Safe Access (ASA),the nation's leading medical cannabis patients' advocacy organization, on behalf of local members and allies. Read more about ASA and join today! www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org District Attorney tip ` Phone: (541) 388-6520 Admin. Fax: (541) 330-4691. Patrick J. Flaherty A 1164 NW Bond Street Felony Fax: (541) 388-6615 Bend,OR 97701 Grand Jury Fax: (541)330-4698 www.deschutesda.org ctitoJ� Juvenile Fax: (541) 383-0901. March 14,2014 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Commissioner Tammy Baney Commissioner Tony Debone Commissioner Alan Unger Re: Medical Marijuana Regulation Dear Board of Commissioners: The Oregon Legislature recently passed Senate Bill 1531, which restricts local government regulation of medical marijuana facilities to only time, place and manner restrictions,unless a city or county enacts an ordinance declaring a moratorium and notifies the Oregon Health Authority of such moratorium by May 1, 2014. 513 1531 limits the duration of the moratorium to May 1, 2015, after which it is replaced by the time,place, and manner restrictions. The moratorium would represent an exercise of the county's home rule authority and police powers. to prohibit certain activities within the territorial limits of the county. I write to urge the Board of County Commissioners to declare a moratorium on the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries in Deschutes County (outside of those territorial boundaries under the jurisdiction of municipal governments), at least until such time as effective regulations of such facilities are promulgated that adequately ensure public safety. My concerns about allowing the virtually unlimited proliferation of medical marijuana facilities are many and are grounded in my experience dealing with problems caused by access to mind-altering drugs such as marijuana,especially to young people. According to a recent position statement of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), there is ample reason to be concerned about both the increased availability of marijuana and.the negative impacts that has on our community. Some of the problems identified. by the NAI)CP, and supported by reliable medical and scientific evidence, are: • Marijuana is the most commonly abused illegal drug among adults and youth in our country; • Marijuana use rates have increased substantially in recent years; • Social disapproval of marijuana use is decreasing; • More young people are in treatment for marijuana abuse or dependence than for alcohol and all other drugs; Page 1 of 2 • Marijuana is addictive for 1 in 9 adults and 1 in 6 adolescents who use it; • Marijuana use negatively affects the development of the adolescent brain; • Marijuana use is consistently associated with poorer academic grades and a reduced likelihood of graduating from school; • Marijuana use during adolescence is directly linked to the onset of major mental illness, including psychosis, schizophrenia,depression and anxiety; • The use of marijuana makes addiction to other drugs more likely; • Marijuana use by parents is strongly associated with child abuse and neglect(as one recent Deschutes County Family Drug Court participant said, "When you're high,you aren't there for your kids,even if you're physically present."); • Marijuana use impairs motor coordination and reaction time and is the second most prevalent drug(after alcohol) implicated in car crashes. Making marijuana more available to our community will have the unintended effect of making it more available to young people,because of increased supply. More marijuana will cause the price of marijuana to be reduced,thus making it more affordable to everyone, including young people. More marijuana and easier availability will increase the number of marijuana DUII and impaired driving crashes on our roads. The current regulations mandated by the state are not matched by any funds for enforcement. This unfunded mandate would shift the cost of enforcement onto local government. Even if our local governments can absorb these costs,the regulations themselves will do nothing to ameliorate the negative effects of increased marijuana supplies. No responsible citizen can find these economic and social costs acceptable. For these reasons, I urge the Board of County Commissioners to declare a moratorium on medical marijuana facilities unless and until public safety can be adequately safeguarded. Very truly yours, Patrick J. Fl: erty Deschutes County District Attorney Page 2 of 2 March 17, 2014 DESCHUTES C O U N T Y In my opinion it is critical that we adopt the proposed Deschutes County SHERIFF ' S Ordinance 9.04.040, which specifically prohibits marijuana dispensaries in F F I C E Deschutes County. I have attached a graph that identifies the increased number of approved medical marijuana card holders since April 2006. The attached graph from Deschutes County more specifically shows an increase from April 2006 of 283 to 3,109 as of January 2014. LARRY B C ANTON b�heziff" This represents a ten times greater number of approved medical marijuana 33 W. Hewn.20 Fend..,OR 97 701 cards in just seven years. These cards are extremely easy to obtain and controlling who has access and who is approved is impossible. Bend(Vico 341.388.6655 Additionally, I have attached a graph for Crook and Jefferson Counties which Fax 541.389.68:35 also show an increase but at a much lower rate. Adrnr'rii tT Blinn 541.388.6659 I have attached another table that lists the number of applications for Medical Fax 7 3454 Marijuana Dispensaries received on March 3, 2014, the first day the state .,Pine Office accepted applications. Deschutes County received 17 applications,the fourth 51:310 Highway 97 highest in the state. L..Pin, UF1.97739 541.5361758 Fax 541..536.5766 Marijuana is the number one abused illegal drug among adults and youth in the United States. The level of THC, which is the psychoactive ingredient in ."j;ters Office 711;3 rr Larch St.,Suite C marijuana, has increased six fold since the 1960s. Marijuana can affect 541.349.2:302 memory, cause learning disabilities and delay coordination and reaction times. T'atx.541.549.1762 Marijuana use during adolescence is directly linked to early onset of major fer!ebnnrlc 0117(.e.? mental illness, specifically psychosis, schizophrenia, depression and anxiety. 815.1 1 1 t.}, Street,Saite:3 Terrebnnn ..(lR 97760 541.92:3.8270 The long-term negative effects of marijuana can last up to 28 days after the Fax 541.545.7589 substance has been ingested. Marijuana and alcohol are the most prevalent ,SX„_ af, F,r. t.e.5;5, drugs implicated in automobile crashes. 5=11.1388.6501 Fax 541.388.07533 The American Medical Association and other major medical organizations L'ir7..r ..Tint Services oppose the legalization and medicalization of marijuana. The Federal Drug 54:.(11.7.3303 Administration has not approved the use of smoked marijuana as medicine. Fax 541.388.079:3 Adult Almost, without exception our burglary,theft, assault and; in some cases, 541..;88.6661 murder can be linked to the abuse of controlled substances. The National Association of Drug Court Professionals opposes the legalization of marijuana. f Page 2 In a snapshot of statistics from our Deschutes County jail for September 2013, we had 479 bookings of which 59.9% of the inmates presented with substance use disorder and 31.73%were identified with mental illness. In my opinion, our public safety, quality of life and our children's safety depends strongly on our restriction of the distribution of medical marijuana. I am strongly opposed to any legislation in regards to legalization of marijuana. Help me stand strong in the protection of our community and our children. I urge you to pass the proposed County Ordinance 9.04. Thank you. Siry��eely, jir ■ i , „ ' L r(,:: '-n 4' Sh: • • I 1 , I - ..' C v- 0 0 a) >, 0 a e- tV •• = Ci) , 0 -1-, = _C 0 • I ■• , (1) ■cl- , , I i 0 ,(7 1 1, ; 1 C\1 I I i 0 1- T:5 co 1 , i .= ---) -t3 "C5 I f 1 , ‘..1 (.0 I 75 C) 1_0 CNI 1- t M < E3 cq = N - :-""""' I , ■ 8_ (ts 1 i (75 , 1 , ..... , ..c..; i . 1 t ; • I I I 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(-) -app U) c Lc) c L) C) LC) sieplogpico jo laquinN f I 4 C , 0 r0t V Ni CS C V C C 0 CZ L o . i, x1 N lE , L - I I © ((3 ( its{ U CZ 1 Q © 0 I H N t �' € , o 03 eir e r `d �= i. I .� 1 i 1 Q G V I t } € t 5 a 0 O Q C U) ° co CO N N 1— sieplogpiea 4o aagwnN .., I ' ' 1 1 I ! 1 i 1 i fI I 1 i 1 Tr 0 , c•I 0 0 0 1... 4%-- i o t 1 1 cn ,_ -..... — ,.... , o c f t (t3 -C3 0 C **-- 1 CZ CO f en% 0 C) I . , 8 = , 1— c) m c`i c :=. ta '– L._ cci i 1 . _ I 'g (1:3 I l C..) 1 1 i cu 1 1 ' _ 1 , 0 (3 10 0 E.C) CD C G 0 CD LO a (z) Lc-) R tr) © co 0 ieql-/Jn N sjapio..iiniea_ March 3, 2014 Below are the first day numbers of applications received in counties in Oregon for Medical Marijuana Dispensary Licenses. 289 total paid applications Multnomah 135 Lane 41 Jackson 18 Deschutes 17 Lincoln 11 Marion 11 20 counties less than 10 10 counties with none ( Cy- / Bonnie Baker I/IppA To: BOCC; Tom Anderson Subject: FW: Public meeting In case you did not get this. From: Erica Fuller-Hewitt [mailto:ericaPrimrocktrailsats.org] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 9:42 AM To: Bonnie Baker Subject: Public meeting I do apologize that I just saw the email regarding this meeting this morning. We have been the primary provider of youth substance abuse treatment in Central Oregon for close to 25 years. We see the devastating effects of substance abuse on kids and their families every day. Many if not most youth who are currently using/abusing marijuana have obtained it from an adult and those with a medical marijuana card.As an agency advocating for youth we support Deschutes County Health Services position on this matter. I personally am a member of the Terrebonne community and support a ban. Regards, Erica Erica Fuller-Hewitt, MA, LPC, CADCIII Executive Director wa Kimrock Trails Adolescent Treatment Services www.ri mrocktrailsats.orq 1333 NW 9th St. Prineville, OR 97754 Toll free:888-532-6247 Telephone: 541-447-2631 Fax:541-447-2616 Like us on Facebook! http://www.facebook.com/RimrockTrailsATS NOTICE:THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED BY FEDERAL LAW.This electronic message transmission,including any attachments,contains information from Rimrock Trails Adolescent Treatment Services which may be confidential or privileged.The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above.If you are not the intended recipient,be aware that any disclosure,copying,distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited by Federal Law.lf you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by a "reply to sender only"message and destroy all electronic and hard copies of the communication,including attachments. Kimrock Trails Adolescent Treatment jervices www.r i m ro c kt ra i l s a is.o r q 1333 NW 9th St. Prineville, OR 97754 Toll free: 888-532-6247 Telephone: 541-447-2631 Fax: 541-447-2616 Residential Admission Fax: 1-541-325-4912 Like us on Facebook!http://www.facebook.com/RimrockTrailsATS?ref—hl NOTICE: THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED BY FEDERAL LAW. This electronic message transmission,including any attachments,contains information from Rimrock Trails Adolescent Treatment Services which may be confidential or privileged.The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above.If you are not the intended recipient,be aware that any disclosure,copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited by Federal Law. If you have received this electronic transmission in error,please notify the sender immediately by a"reply to sender only"message and destroy all electronic and hard copies of the communication,including attachments. 2 Bonnie Baker From: Jock Pribnow<jockpribnow @gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:41 PM To: Bonnie Baker Subject: Comments on proposed Deschutes County marijuana dispensary ban Board of County Commissioners: Given that medical marijuana dispensaries do exist or will exist in several cities in Deschutes County, and given that the regulation of these dispensaries is nebulous/dubious, I believe it is appropriate that Deschutes County instate a moratorium on dispensaries in unincorporated areas of the County. While I cannot speak for the Deschutes County Public Health Advisory Board, I can say that we as a board are critically concerned about the possibility of increased availability of marijuana to teens and adolescents, and about marketing and packaging designed to appeal to teens and adolescents. Thank you for your consideration. Jock T. Pribnow, MD, MPH Chair, Deschutes County Public Health Advisory Board i Bonnie Baker From: Kathy Gilbert<gilbe @bendbroadband.com> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 8:22 AM To: Board Subject: opinion for meeting 10 a.m. Monday March 17 To the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, Because I work and cannot attend the public meeting scheduled for March 17 at 10 a.m. for input regarding possible ban on medical marijuana dispensaries operating outside city limits, I would like to express my opinion within this e-mail rather than appearing publically. I am 64 years old and a registered voter in Deschutes County. I would like to express my opinion against such a ban. I believe all commerce related to medical marijuana should be free from restriction anywhere in Deschutes County, both inside and outside city limits. Thank you. Kathleen Gilbert 1951 NW Oak Avenue Redmond, OR 97756 phone: 541-526-0056 1 il\,IA„,k ' 4,,,,,",,,40 ‘,4,„v pu�a \N,` fi\!\,q \N\\\� 4 '.\N 1 ,.6,4; Americans For Safe Access 4 ,, ,v' AN ORGANIZATION OF MEDICAL PRO FESSIQNALS,SCIENTISTS,AND PATIENTS HELPING PATIENTS ,\ d ,\C,; \ , a p rcN i ^\\\\\\"*\ u " ,hp , q \ di; w 1,,,,k,,, ‘,;;',',,`!V„,,,,,,,$101T11,p \\\\pq\\,i1 ,,' `rp: ! +N+ .,N \ �a !v.r...;\b vVy !P .!\;w! \H ! \ \h ,.t. , rr \r ,\ \\ \\9a !,\,� ,r;t.\\, v „!\!,\Vr \V\r �,v�g.n, ,!\ :4` \ i, + 4"4\J !\ !,q\a\\\ 1\\\\\ \ ,r°Nu\ \\Gp 4, \t; p,''' ',,!\ (01,J ,\,,',4'\\, '0 r\ ", ,,, \N !, ,,a "\!„\qr .vN,,, ,N Pp `\\y\\\\\ d , ^N V,;, \ ,! d ` NN „, ,4 �' ! N �`h ! 6 "J \r �! '\ u' �\\,4\y�?, \!\`\\NN4�f\,�,�,,,N,', `'N'�XX \. p\I\p4` \ql!\ \\ � . , e, ,am , dry' \;1, !\ q\ u,, \d j1! !,4! : S n pq\uy \ ma \�\�yappQ \ !w,N\\ \ \\ puu\\\\ \ kw rN\ 4\r a\ b \ a v d\\ i„,,,,,„„:,,,,,,, ;'� \ \�! � 4 � \i" d A V ' 1„� dy! w\a\d 1 r \ w " a t @ P ,,d ,r \\\\\\q,,, \ N N A\\\try!.I , \\N " "M \ q�!ry \� N � \\\Cd,��\��NN����\t\�N,��\p\\' � !VN\\a\!\�'\Y M �:��; a t1!�\;�.°,�q`w r' \ \\'. "\`�N!!\�.,`� �"\ \� \�\�\ry! \ �a tN \, „8!y ,v!. \ h!\ \\�\\\:,! \\, \ ,\�\'V;!!y\n, d, !? a V,d6 ,o\ ,�\`\�,, \\,1\ \1 w N!+d\\� „ ,\\ ,!q,\ry,p, , '\ \ P;" r\ !u !\S\\!\\\r\\ 8\, \ rc u\;p\V y !\\µ\, ! Nr\\ \,a�!r "N', i \\A N,,,,\N,.� N\ Vk,,%\! \�!; !,�y \!\ '4, \, :!p''\� � \ ,\p�\\ \\��\�0a\H,w^� r ,e! r ,a N!,, ,N��,\4,r;rc,\ �",\,\" ,\ " ` 1!\, ,.a\\\ �.;, \ ,,\\,\ a !,\ \ V,\\\.,�� \\, v. \d,, r \ ,\„!\,� �\ \\,�,,.\\ \ ,� q Nt�,,,\, (a\\\Ik\\:\ , J���,� p,�,�\, \w r �\�\\;�„ '�' \ � "+\\,�;\���d,�. �� ,er„ bw,; \.,\ k,t !\ \ A44,\! t!,\g 4aa,! \ ,A r \v;, ''� ,0;u7 \\\\ ",\P r \ \ r v ,\,�\ , ! >` r'1 p \ \� '„ NN „ `\ �\,\\N,�r"\ VI:, '�\"���V'N 'V ,NP \0N,,,,,, °v� \r1,. ,,, v \ \ \ r,, !\� $," ! ! P�\ 4 \ \\\r \�„\\\ \ N a� ad „o�\ \ \\\� � \ \,(�,, \" \\\ \�ry\�M d +`Jp! \N,� � N�!,\\d\ ( �\����!p"!� r,^ ;;,� 1 \\ \ u k\ ,,v;\^, �It^�\\\ ,,\� ,\�.�\� ,q a ,, \4a �\ �,� .\\ \, �!;�,^,\, .Xrc\\,!\4 ; \ ,\,�\,;4�\\ \ `\yW,;,� \NN„� \,��:t\\ rr Nd\,\\\\„ ""\ N',! i1i N\�1',1� ! ^'','' td; N;',\,(p\ ��,,!! '' �\,\\r r%,,,,,,,,k,` i pp r ��.,;.; , d, q\ \� \ !\ �\4\\;i a b \ \ \; \! \ i�I !' 4ku+. ! \ ,\l.\�\ \"'T,f �d \\��\N, v \ a \ryN;\h`\` \p;t�., " \ �M d�'':qf\�\ \) V\,'�� \ \(. r ;t\ d !\\ \ ;, ,?a ar N � \1! \ N!iuN';1�,�',�\ \\+ f N\\ a�! !,N,\!\^ N\ \\" N�i \ \ q \\\\+\ \ \\ ,\) \\\\\\�` 1 ! �\\aN `�°, p \4 d ,^,, 1 �:rN Nh h y\ b,��\\N \q !\\ M `N' N\\ 1�`u„d\N \ S \ \�,\ r PN ` �, � :� \ \N\N„�\ ,!a,d ry\�\r\��'��, w,\8i yv, r \\ �1pdn1! !N\ N �gP�i� r^ "N \r\,\, \ �:rN,�M�y`! �\!"r�,\:,�!I\� "!�,r\r\a X'''',' \' \\Id �p'hr1p,\ w1�\:'�p�t \ \ \ !\11,�\� '\�! \`,!\NH\\"!c k1 N\N J\ „\.dy`N!�~t" 4 v� V VN,. „1\ IM N '��,,,, '�(\�,,� ,.'e,'i '' \ 1, � 0X. u:,'� !X1 \,., \', \ \,\�„\ rX'\\,N 1A \.. Ord, r \ \:� \r Np.r.'d. \" V\! !\°4 stt \(, \f' ,;!!\, ,. \" \"�\ ,,, ,1.,,\ \',,v,\,`\!�\,',\��N,„, ��4 a 1,;, ,�. „d\ �N� �,, `\�,\\ ro 1) \,.i., ! ,\�;'. 'r ! �� !.,, N'\ q. ;W\�\ , \ v ;,�N`„4\ N,\\ q.. w ,? ,�aSvu'N�N \\�'�N ^h \\,\!\\\\ �,q�r\N\ \,\ �,u„\ " r�t�,!\\!vM��mN,,�\ �N\u�,\y\�„ i;', \,,, N\d�h\Na\�� \ ,„\ �� ,1 @ pp \\����\lo\\r��V\ q\ P V .,� y, \,u ,r \;,\,,,p\ �\\�\�,r`\`1�v6. \�\i, 1,Cap\V'!! \ \\', ! Np.\\\\la. p\ , , 4a ,\\ p ryVG, " r a \ ?,, d \\\ e �\ , "d\\ N. !,\ , \\.1,\`\\,r ti'''k\t\tii,N \ \ Ph\N\\�n v\,rN,N� �q\\\\\rN\\\ �C� � " 'r 1" �\\ \�,� �1 i„p \ G \ \!\d \�d+; \\ti 4,i° ^\`l 4,, °4 dh04W 44,,d\�FN \`,p` ' ,',,1\\rc\\�,O,j\'4,t \, ,\q!\ r� ', ,\\,r\\\\\. \ "� '\ a d i\,',. ,\1 \\\ 1,\�\\`�,.,; �!\\ �\\\ „N^�\\;�\\ \\��ry4\\�`?,�N\pJ `NC`'�\\� (,\p, ,� � \NN \',�N' \Jp, , \Y,\, ,�i\\, "P ��, �\;; \! ,\bii Ig,,,V,\ \ ,^p`, �\, !`\\�, p,` ^ \,\1, \;,'f,\\d\,!! 0,01'N ai d 1 i\ V\ , !v\!\� \, \N \\\N"\h \ \!@\ V 1r \y!r\1 , `N\,, �''\\, N �� N �\\��r r`'1`'. \ V\41, \ ) \ " ! V pit!'\u\N\r r°r\d\\�\�,a 'q\\\ !\ ! \ !ry \� \ \ \ \ !, 1�\�2 \C\ \ ,\ p\N N'\ 1 q' \"A\` \ , i \,p\\,. , ®� N \\, �N\ ,,,,,,,,,,,,0"A, \ \N\ ,!Y:p t',\`' \'N r�'�'6p`a.�o\\\j\\\\\t \\ a\� f� nj \� y d` \ ;°;4a0.;\1a' Np; ,, \i\\, \ \\N, ! ,,p\�\NX4\ 4i,\ 1,\\u\ki „Np\u pp �1 ';` ti,\ N`V"\4,11n\ , \�\„Y? 14',4,,,k',4p $' 4d \\ \ \\ *,, �!N \,;' , wq\ \1 rJ\\, \� ,t \ \�`��Np��\� \�\u� \\\p\W\\\\��\'tp\r N,\ppu`, � p!�„� \ t„ � \r u\ `\ �\\��`+a\;. \ \?\ ,\ \\\ \ ,t\, \q '4a,\�4 \ \ \,, I\\,\\\\,\.t;4\N \ `\ ;'1 V, ,`, \: �`C�'!. '\;\\\\?\\,`\\\ 4 ;\,\u a4, \vy;,\ \ �\N \!, \ \ \\yJci\\\\o� A Pd �\ N,1 �a �' N, \ a\‘',i, \! I,�r! �, � r \ \\ N\\�N.�`,� ,,,\, N u,N\"`\e r F M '," upaN�� v � J ,\,1 \ \� �\,�N \\t\ �',4\� �K� ,\a F\r� ~,N,'n(:\,:. d, ' 1h \d`,d\?i!,;�\ \!\ r�\N`"!,\ \d\ aG� \ � !\�4k\ \h`V. ! \��\\�\ \ !\\,�y;Nv`V;� !::"V �.,�r' \\\d,.:,N! \ r.V,,,,;.,�,\ o f q p\ : \ `,\„ V r ;,N!!It \ N r,,,1 r"s ! j r, V \!!1.p�� i \ \1\,\,', \r \ \v; „t',.\,`,4,. ,\\ 4+ N \� �\ V\ \N\ p,@�!G\,,� 4\ 4, J 4�NMN 9 u Ja,"�:;� v ! + a r \;1�r\ r`p y�`\ „\ Hrtimry'\\`'`�\�,\\'�_\Y�\\\V\!k"\V\� ;"'N d\ '44 4`+V'�W�\\ ar �"'\ghd \�. 1, �� ,1\ d\:\^\\,\1\�,\\!�\�� �\� "u 1"\y\pv; +\ \+ n !!\ : ,^ \4 \N\�';�� \ V V ai\\\'Np';Ru`� M p\r'N:', u.N\9,\ \ ,-,,,w4,\ \, \,, \ 0 \ � \ d`p! a '^!,q' N \ \:ae\ \ Mp?•„k g' "\a ` w \ , \N�! ,a w . ,i';\ \ M, 1\!N\r, ,,',1\ p ' !. �p N\„ \ , !\ \X \\i q ! ! t ,,\ ^\,t "\P,°\\a �\ 4 \ PN;,1,,r au t\ !, \�\\ 0 \+' ��ry ,r\Py;, ,4 „� '`�;�p \N! \" p iV4 ,,, !."N ,, r�\\ ,,k\\\ N! \)\\,„\?.t0`, , ,w\f'\"�1 ,',0 N `�` \, Y 1 y !,\\\ �!1, : !:.,k, \,V!;: i4d� 1„ \` , ,F\', !i\n�gd\!\uq Nq'.v ,.,�q,,\\\\N", \\' 1,R 4 �:N"�",N\ � 'hvnR q \ �� �r!Na\v \N ,\@N�,.; rc \C\.,: ,p ,\VyN p ��\ dV' \�\\NN\\�\ ,\\�,,,\k,�,:'. N�!�\,,N. '�, ^ \ \hr:` `,N\\d u �,�\�4,,,,,„,„„N,,,oi�\\, \,N i4N ,'\.,:„.,,, 1i+u ,N,a,\�\a ,,m„.;r \ ,!,1dN \ � i,N, ,,,, �„ \ „\ \,, ,\.\.,' ,,; ,, 4','',',',A, ,\r !\\ !V,,„,,,,„w`N \ 1P,,\441. \'� ",,„ `1t'iu,:,! \4\�u.4\,4441\1,00, 14\N�!\! \ ';,104M0 a " 4 , ,,,,N�':�y'., ' \\ `1\\,\,; `\ \ !,\‘','" ! \"Y d y\° '\�, a'\V!i'.!p d ,!I!, Y1 i., ,„\ N\4\ra� "a4 qq U�,4\ \�i�\)\\�,! arc\N,n.1 \ V �� "�, 'b ! 4 „,,t 4v! u,pV;!\�\ !�\+ !i!, , ! \! \\,„ "N`1v rc\v 4` �\! Y�' ! !, ry\\�I, � ,,,\, \ `��,. �d� ,d`' � � ` ! \ N � Y !N\ �,a� ;��\ (�1\\ �:, \\\�\,\,! \ !!\pNp\,!,r!!�G�,,\\�„\� � \ ``q\\,`�\r\�\� a N \� "`�! A,\, \„\ na\ 1;, !\\!\\ \\' ,\\ �\`� l\ ^ \\\\ d uw \\4\„\\ pa \P 1 �' \W! !� ,I\ q �\\ \� ,� �! V! ,,,', i' V! s` r\0 :,\'\ , „"" �V�'V \4 Nydv 4!\,Nd �o ! M+,p W\ \` y ,;,,,',4,,,,\k,,,' " \ ! \V,. V \��"' , \„, 1^�\N"\\ \�\,V ,!yip � N'P (� \\ \�W, \\ r�� y �` p! ,\ � ,,,,„,,, ,A,,,\4, V) �\ ,\\\ V 'a q,\ 4','!\\� � p\"\ "ry, ', \ \�`',,\\��p\y!\ \\1\\\\\! ts, v`'yy�,��\\u\\h'4q�\;!, ,\�':N�h?, N . \ \, , .,, , !\\!\\�1!,�\P \„�,o\�,,� , �Y; p !�.1. \','a\ `:p\\��\\'q\4�\\+,;.�� ! Cp"w,;,. �+"'fN'.�p\!,.;v\.�:�! �„ \ ! Pq. ;v \\\� \\G: k , !r", a\? ,p{%\,, \"\,,\,,q!\, \ }, \\i,\t, �\ C ;,,a, t4 N "Nm., ,\ \ ,\\ ,4,,, ,1 ,l\;\) J\N,\I„ \! \\ !\\\�\qN�"1 `4 Q \\ \ ;,\�\,y��\ !\\\" 4 war \! �\�\4 11N \\ „!dN,!1 ,� aHp ,1 \ N, \ ''�\;' �\ ��\\ �!\ , \ 4 -.c,,,,\ a,N 1 1,I \\\u\,\\;, `p'�i 0 J \'''''aN; t 1 !P'N;4, \\\\\\0,,„4. p\\\,!4"\ N Y\J N1 \\ o..,N'd ! \\ \ A,A: \\\y Va\\\ \\ 1^ ,,!\ ,M \ \\;`6 !\4ry" ! rN N \\\,, \ , �w`N m , \\ \ \' ;\ ; p� ! �'1 �\ \, :\ \ „\a\ \i ; t\r•'`A A„` \ ,p N a,. 1 k,y !\,.,,,N w\,!,,. ,,„a N\ ,\u\4, 4\A \ , N' \\\„\`N\ 4\\! '','''''''‘',0\,'"4414 '440\110t„4„,101,,;,,4%,,,,,,,,,,,\ ,! \ i "1\ ,wd ! \^� N \ \\!4,\\! \ ,y y ,\ 1\ N,\, ,! , \ P11Q „. ,A'' ,,,t 1 Al \\ ,"At ,,\\ti\, d+ ", !\\?\\\p\,\G!p\ ,, ,I'," 4\N\,\,\t`,' \ ,t;; �b 4,`t �' w 1`\v, d ;! h\ „���N r\�„4 !�1\ ,\\\\�\!ry1, \!,\\\\, � , ��,�!,1\�\\!: � "\ "'"A`\''',$ 44" �,�� , „ , y ,'\b.n \�\`, \,,ie 4\'\\\�C N;�,V.,\\ Gt+\,!4\�,tNp, ,,\\,N\, q�`7, M\��J\\ ,`\,„ o, '\ ' \'\ v„,,,,,,,,, $ �\\!! \., e,w r ! , \.! ti, , \ ,, ,;41 ';,N, .„" p 4 \!,\ !,ry i;, ,,,\!\P\\,\ 1i,N \N\! \\\ r,\, \!,.',,'! r ,�op, 1q,\\N N,V:� N" \ \ R,.\!�^N ,:.:;R !\ ! "a .. ! a,\q\, d' , \,\ �pC\,e,'N\Ny,)fl \ \.! , p'T' \ \\N dd„a' 4 ,`N' t .N w, ! !!\\\ ''4,',\,\\\4p\\\!\ r\!!,\t,4,1 '!l ..1."`'..,: r':'!d`\ q,a\,;,a, \ ,`^ ,p,r1!,p\v!'! \ ar.,.. ,a ,,A,t4,\q\!\^\XX\04, N\\ �i \;` ) 4,4uO \ o ,4,4O '„A`444,‘,\ uNt ,r,\�u,,�\! 44, N\ , 4,: ,1,,,r\\; 4 a VN\ d\!�\tVVyu! ,'„ ' , \\\, a\�\\ ,\ u" 4�\\\t \� ��p \'\4 4\\ \ !�a, e \\\ a pn",\�p�?'+ �;' \ \ \\ ,\\\ 04`M1\\,4ot\� a�N hY ,\\!'e.', \ &. \\N�,\l\\�w \'Y@\\,p a 4, r.� V, ^v1 1''"'v ,4 4` \M\,'� , N `!� " i \'4r` (\ , \N\\. t,W s a � ,,!":\.,� 4 ,!,r\� h ! p 4.\\!rV ,, N\ \1\�\�, rc4 \!,\' \�\\ �: \�,! y !\1\\�\\Nau!\ N, 1h\, M d 14,! F\,\�\N^ y \ \,�,!N � N,�` \;r;`, \ �, X \�. A4,‘, \!\ \ p '\ p'N4`\\ Xpi3O\,, ;N \\N.,\ o \ \'A\p;'� a p ! h $, V G,\ \\ h "! \ ,q \ \\ \N.,\\ a,`, !�„ , \ 'wvfu\ ` k!`\P ( !','\MM,� � !.. pu\ ^ r�� `! y i\, \ w\ \�\"qN`; \,4,,‘„,,,,\ a !,r\\,r,'i�4\r4,t\\,``'\y\4\ , ,\ \,"\+N', N, \dN \ ` u w ,, � �\, \ \ \\ \ \ ; ��\ \1 !' !)., \! q,�\��\�4 p\!\�N��,�,,,"R\r, \ \, �� \'4;0\\a\!� \\N\N�?\\\1�pp,��\�u`'�4�,hN�1 ''',,N� e,,,,4,„ ,; ! r �;V',a !\ ,�� 4ti\Y\\N?\,,\,,r\� \;,\" '\\\;\\N !v ,p,. \ , 1;,u 'N'.',,,,,\ p\ \ ,, ! ,, Va...,. v . \ !\ �\'.N,N,,�, ,,\N\,J ,,,,, ,. , ,)\\\N\ op,,,, \ \ ,,F� , , ! J t. ,,,\q a ,, , ! ,r, V. \\, �1 ;,�,,,,, , \,u41„„ ,\ \ , 1„4!r\\\ ! , � � r, , ::r , ! 1 N\ r , ,\,� qN ! \,, ,, ! � ! p,\!", ,�1,\1 � ! \i� r.,,."a '\\\p,\\�9a !. !p�,N\\N\ �\J..� �q 1 u��l\' .n P q \!.! \ , ,.,�\.\ �,�m b!t \\, � \�\�.�.... k p\W, u \ \Q\,,\ r up'\ ',\\� ,\,,, \t\e!4,.� , , \\!,,p\ ,J P \\ \!,,d d *' �`, � W�\ p. 'A''!!t! � ;,�\,w !1! ^,�.\ \ !�\,N,,, ,\ , \ �! r ( N 1,\.w,, �P 1\ 11 \\ \� \ 1 ,1 4... ^ \,! \,,,, ��! \m , tn,,,;;.,N !. n\!4 \.!\, tq rcq°urrw\) ! \ \ \\ N„ \!, '!V,., q ,a \;,r \f, \ „��'i,,., \,:. i',',4;474,',4,', ;,m'. ' `. , V � 1:: ��\,!\ \\\, ,\1 ,\:'.„, ,\ \\.:..I' d! \„,...,..,,, \\6'k v^\ \ III"7;;ryh N ;IIii ,"''I \ u �s ,. "; rye ,., ;;N;.,,,\ 1 \t, „!,... \ V, \�\., 4.. d d.!, ,d\��1 N,.,1\`,1 \` ,;\1��4\1�� t1V p\!m!qN.,.,4! 1r\N „v �1,,,, ,W �\\y!�' .! , ,,q,,,,�1`,.�C\ ! , ,"`\,, \NN\\y\!�\�\,\1 \,nR,\.\,.... 44 ,, d \4`, r !!a ` \ W\ +\!` \ " \\ \�4 , , Apr q 4,, \,pq ,p, !P' \ , !\1\,*� \ ,aq ''\" , '\ ,"� , ��, N q;` ,�\\N � a,, „�\ r, , q\� j', \,M�'\\�\'d,! ! ,\v\ \ \\\� NNV \:" � ,\� @ , �"\\�I ,\„�q,4!�\�\! ),H!,4NY!Nu ,,\n ' ��,,, \ , PN, �\ti\p� v �`, ,o, a !Nd ,,, � \ �'a ,1� �. n !' ! , ,,� ,��,, \ !,\\! ; 1 ! \ ,, ,, 4\,�\ 4 Ira N we, ^ rc, � �" ,\°', \, ,r, , !! N„ �! \! ! �,,.,v,.,,a,\ 1 ! V�\ 1\ N\.,.. ;,,\,.,r,.k ! v,\0},, � 1r � )! v, \ "!\' !.i�.\ ,q.^.,v N�.� ! h \ '!1!!a'N,.,0!,n \ ,,, ` ��! , ,: \\�'u \,\,,\n 4!w!d \ r ",. \! , \,:, \\d �N \ 4,, d\N�! 1p N,�t\ �:y\, ,4 � ,, \ � r �M"\ �,qn.,�!\ \„ \\C !\,r., „ua \ \ J!,,,r\!W !��\ \p\d,\ r, N`�.. \ \,\ , \\ � 4:., \\q!q\ G. �!�\;11; '! ! , . !1q\�,..\ !p "N!!\`,�!v.:,! �\N !..,,!\� !\.,o, N! !�.;,:� ,..'N � n.,:a,: ! :.a+d�N ! �, \�;.JN,!., \. �\,,�+!.1a „�; !!\ \ ,,,y\d !!r`i\,!„! , 41« ,,\ \\r\; \ ;\\\\\ ;r' G 1p ",Q \dN, G \P\, " 1, hw N', dN 1 \ \ Q,,,,+„ q a w„r v \, , a 'vv s`,'d\ r`, a ,,\ : `!4 , 4,,,k,°.,4,4,4; & \ \ :\.u. y !'\,.\„ ,`\\,, ,al,,. \! \ ! 4\ �r\\\\ o,W,�\\,P,p\ \\.,\,g,,0,4,,, \\N p\ \w r,';;+ p!"\\,,:'.N! a,,d'p"` p \ ',�! : \ a! ,�� ,�.:, �,!\��!p, d� h o,;r4,+,u y,\h\{!\P,r!,,e�,q\! \. ,� �\I��`\�\,,�\ \ ,! \\\a�!�:\ �1 !\o\1\\,.,,!�,'!q q�V u. +t.! N ',�p�N:!., \ N'`a,.:,�.! 1\q�!A1�!\.'\ \, �1:\I\ \\\�:■��� �p !\� \y\ \,\\\.u\\ ` � ,, NN ;0d ^ ( d1, !\,.� \ dp 7, Nd \ ( ,\, , I \, \ p a\, ! `\N m\pV 4p`,\ d�n";i \ � +\' �a \\ !\ '`! M,,�!\�! ,! ",` \�\u �,\\rC ! ^ \\� \\\� \ �' \��; �\\,, \,�Y\ \\!"N ":!q���,\\\!\\�\N; ,. \\1 \\ V„p \ , n �\\\'\\\\h� ,p\\. , w „,;y� ��� �p N\,p �! \\ \ � \ �\IV,P,; \,r,,, , !,N` ,,4 \,,t,A,,,! ,\,, ,� r,\ , d!\!% ;r:\\ a ,r ,ru\v\`\ \ ` ` ` ',rc,!`1, 4' „\�, \ Y ,4,N, " ''' V.,,l\„-r,III\iI4IIV,\III'4, " ,,. \\ , ,t,\, &N, r ,\ \,\, �`\! a I!4,"6 \ \\\\\\\\?, 0 \!a„ \ \ \!<,. a ;,\rc''' ,1,':'�u \4'qN a,\' +,,; \ :IX',,.''' p\ \t:\\ a:l !! \' \\\p, „ ,\v.,q„,o'0 �.,,,„ry4 n\^a ^!n. ';, \ \\,a. \"\\ `,\�\ \„'t,V1\q:. ,\4,\ v) M ;�, µ\ r.4 ;(r,, \\ \4,, \, \ \\q\ ,m to, \\, \ \, Nw "Iii„i„ \M ,�.,.. \.\ V�\\ , . !\\ .\\. ."��, \\l�\ a �,��� e!\\ ��,^,, ! ,1,\(\..�\, \\ ,.., N \\ \ �. \.�\, � \�!� � !4\`e\,N,a,... �\N\ 4p \�\ ry 'aNM!� `! Id �q��i\1 Vl1!:,!�, !:�@", ! p !! `Lv \HkN!p` d !La! ,! !1!v;ac,� X411`\!1g1.1�\u\1;d ! !!a!! ,p!�,�.luJ 1! !IN, 11�; `! �:;1�1 ! \\\, J ! !!�,'c„d,,,v.. 4g44 �; try\„, VMM hp w 4u F.V1-AmerieansFoi 4W ,,\,d _ SafeAccess ' p�n' Advancing Legal Medical Marijuana Therapeutics and Research ! M , a.,Y■,i'.,,r V�: q ' No\V\P \111 a\1, N\ ;,\ \u. !„ V \. ,,\ \\ \ :A'\ d \, i,,'„t i,,1\ \ \ , PTV\a P\ \\R,A V;.; \ ,N,R'"a\ N\,. 4 i! ;VV^\!�\ty\\ \,\n\\a N!\ V!r a„� ,! \ 1;\”,\, \,�,V G ! \ V ,,t,„,„, „ 1111\�� \S \, 1, N eN 111\ e � ,1 �1p�M\N�\,1 ` I \ �, , \�\\,\\\V�\ \f\J !! �\ � � \\„!oad ��\"\�a J\e\ V \ r;; w 1 ° � \ rtt+w \A ��!�,;A \\J�e\!,VV � �N��!\\`� M '� 1r\\\\d\\\ N\1,! P"G A‘ � � �!�,�1 \ !» A a \ w re non w \a '`1 \ \\ �\ A \1\H 1 1 \' \I �41q\ � \; N\ \ uv„ n \,",V p� " 1 V \,\ \ \N\\1\V hVl\V`1 A \ '; \ \ \ z + (\'` \ !\�\`\`\1 Nu: n. ,` +V 'N(WV 1 M 1 ";FGi �N\ � \'!1 `�`y 'y� r '\\u'!'1` `\ W Al NV \1 ^ \.:\hi. \ V\ \\ \ \, ;,. 1' 1 \ i�\;V\� am� V! \�\ \Q\�.,.,ti),1 V!.. ��! Y,P u,.„�,�!NVV,\���IP'��'V�p\!PN\,d pVu.�A!;�'VnA\ �BNasA;!t.01e!nn�\inn:!!,�wvVN\ti,A' .,\n\\hu,V.V!w!n� !n,Yr am�ap " \\) kY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY \\\\\\`\' Introduction 261 !\\1\1;u\ 11\ OVERVIEW �P\ \`\\' About this Report 262 \!” About Americans for Safe Access 262 ;�U`���, The National Political Landscape 262 � i\` History of Medical Cannabis in California 263 \!� �\�\�N ' What is a Medical Cannabis Dispensing Collective? 263 ""@\\ Rationale for Medical Cannabis Dispensing Collectives 264 \� ` Medical Cannabis Dispensing Collectives are Legal Under State Law 264 ,,,,,o Why Patients Need Convenient Dispensaries 264 ` \� What Communities are Doing to Help Patients 265 IMPACT OF DISPENSARIES AND REGULATIONS ON COMMUNITIES \ \ ��'' Dispensaries Reduce Crime and Improve Public Safety 222222222666666666464533222 66 `' Why Diversion of Medical Cannabis is Typically Not a Problem 267 '1\` Dispensaries Can Be Good Neighbors 268 \ ' BENEFITS OF DISPENSARIES TO THE PATIENT COMMUNITY \\ Dispensaries Provide Many Benefits to the Sick and Suffering 269 t!' Research Supports the Dispensary Model 270 y Ve Many Dispensaries Provide Key Health and Social Services 270 i l,\ ,\ \� Conclusion 272 \\\` k, Recommendations for Ordinances 273 A Resources for More Information 276 N APPENDIX A t\V' "ii Vk List of City and County Ordinances 277 M $\\\ APPENDIX B \\\, ! Guide for Evaluating Proposed Dispensary Ordinances in California 278 \' P APPENDIX C � \t,\ California Attorney General's Guidelines for Dispensaries 279 \ APPENDIX D IV''\ %, \ Model Ordinance 282 \ \k \kN \ \c� \\\\k\t,'\;:\!\,,!\\!\‘\\\\4\;,\t:'\i;!\\\' 411,t`‘\ For more information,see www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 510-251-1856 ilV \ \\ I I Americans For Safe Access IAN ORGANIZATION OF MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS,SCIENTISTS AND PATIENTS HELPING PATIENTS I I , ICalifornia's original medical cannabis law, the Benefits of regulated dispensaries to Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Prop. 215), communities include: encouraged state and federal governments • providing access for the most seriously ill' to develop programs for safe and affordable and injured, distribution of medical cannabis (marijuana). • offering a safer environment for patients i Although self-regulated medical cannabis than having to buy on the illicit market, dispensing collectives (dispensaries) have • improving the health of patients through existed for more than 14 years in California, social support, the passage of state legislation (SB 420) in . helping patients with other social I 2003, court rulings in People v. Urziceanu services, such as food and housing, (2005) and County of Butte v. Superior Court • having a greater than average customer (2009), and guidelines from the state satisfaction rating for health care. I Attorney General, all recognized and I j affirmed their status as legal entities under Creating dispensary regulations combats state law. With most of the 300,000 cannabis crime because: 1 patients in California relying on dispensaries • dispensary security reduces crime in the for their medicine, local officials across the vicinity, state are developing regulatory ordinances • street sales tend to decrease, that address business licensing, zoning, nd g' g' • patients and operators are vigilant; other safety and operational requirements any criminal activity is reported to police. that meet the needs of patients and the community. Regulated dispensaries are: 1 • legal under California state law, Americans for Safe Access, the leading • helping revitalize neighborhoods, national organization representing the . bringing new customers to neighboring businesses, interests of medical cannabis patients and their doctors, has undertaken a study of the • not a source of community complaints. experience of those communities that have III dispensary ordinances to act as a guide to This report concludes with a section outlining policy makers tackling dispensary regulations the important elements for local officials to { in their communities. The report that follows consider as they move forward with I details those experiences, as related by local regulations for dispensaries. ASA has worked officials; it also covers some of the political successfully with officials across the state to background and current legal status of I dispensaries, outlines important issues to craft ordinances that meet the state's legal 111 consider in drafting dispensary regulations, requirements, as well as the needs of and summarizes a recent study by a patients and the larger community. University of California, Berkeley researcher I j on the community benefits of dispensaries. Please contact us if you have questions: In short,this report describes: 888-929-4367. For more information,see wvwv.AmericansrorSAtFAccess.org or contact the ASA office al 1-888-929-4367 or 510-751-1856. 285 1 1 OVERVIEW OF MEDICAL CANNABIS DISPENSARIES I As the number in the state of California who rely upon medical cannabis for their t t I ber of patients treatment continues to grow, it is increasingly imperative that cities and counties address the issue of dispensaries in our respective communities. In the city of Oakland we recognized this need and adopted an ordinance I which balances patients'need for safe access to treatment while reassuring the community that these dispensaries are run right A tangential benefit of the dispensaries has been that they have helped to stimulate economic development in the areas where they are located." I —Desley Brooks, Oakland City Councilmember ABOUT THIS REPORT but city and county officials are also consider- 1 Land-use decisions are now part of the imple- ing how to arrive at the most effective regula- mentation of California's medical marijuana, tions for their community, ones that respect or cannabis, laws. As a result, medical cannabis the rights of patients for safe and legal access j I dispensing collectives (dispensaries) are the within the context of the larger community. subject of considerable debate by planning and other local officials. Dispensaries have ABOUT AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS I been operating openly in many communities Americans for Safe Access (ASA) is the largest since the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996. national member based organization of As a compassionate, community-based I I patients, medical professionals, scientists, and response to the problems patients face in try concerned citizens romotin safe and legal ing to access cannabis, dispensaries are cur- p g g rently used by more than half of all patients in access to cannabis for therapeutic use and the state and are essential to those most seri research. ASA works in partnership with state, ! I ously ill or injured. Since 2003, when the legis- local and national legislators to overcome bar- lature further implemented state law by riers and create policies that improve access to expressly addressing the issue of patient col- cannabis for patients and researchers. We II lectives and compensation for cannabis, more have more than 50,000 active members with dispensaries have opened and more communi- and affiliates in all 50 states. ties have been faced with questions about I business permits and land use options. THE NATIONAL POLITICAL LANDSCAPE In an attempt to clarify the issues involved, A substantial majority of Americans support Americans for Safe Access has conducted a safe and legal access to medical cannabis. I survey of local officials in addition to continu- Public opinion polls in every part of the coun- ously tracking regulatory activity throughout try show majority support cutting across politi- the state (see AmericansForSafeAccess.org/reg- cal and demographic lines. Among them, a I ulations). The report that follows outlines Time/CNN poll in 2002 showed 80% national some of the underlying questions and pro- support; a survey of AARP members in 2004 vides an overview of the experiences of cities showed 72% of older Americans support legal I and counties around the state. In many parts access, with those in the western states polling of California, dispensaries have operated 82% in favor. The two largest physician-based responsibly and provided essential services to professional organizations in the U.S., the ` I the most needy without local intervention, American Medical Association and the II \. J ..,..�...�.._^-�A Fnr more information,see www.AmericansForSafr.Arretis.nrq or cgntac -� � ' t the ASA office at 1-888-979-4367 or 510-251-1856. 286 I ;M IAmerican College of Physicians, have urged patients such as the Emmy-winning talk show the federal government to reconsider its reg- host Montel Williams and music artist Melissa I ulatory classification of cannabis. For decades, the federal government has Etheridge has also increased public awareness and helped to create political pressure for maintained the position that cannabis has no changes in state and federal policies. I medical value, despite the overwhelming evi- dence of marijuana's medical efficacy and the HISTORY OF MEDICAL CANNABIS IN broad public support for its use. Not to be CALIFORNIA I deterred, Americans have turned to state Since 1996, when 56% of California voters based solutions. The laws passed by voters approved the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), and legislators are intended to mitigate the public support for safe and legal access to effects of the federal government's prohibi- medical cannabis has steadily increased. A tion on medical cannabis by allowing quail- statewide Field poll in 2004 found that "three fied patients to use it without state or local in four voters (74%) favors implementation of interference. the law." In 2003,the state legislature recog- I e j Fifteen states have adopted medical marijua- nized that the Compassionate Use Act (CUA)gave little direction to local officials, which na laws in the U.S. Beginning with California I in 1996, voters passed initiatives in nine states greatly impeded the safe and legal access to plus the District of Columbia—Alaska, medical cannabis envisioned by voters. Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, P Legislators passed Senate Bill 420, the Medical Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Marijuana Program (MMP) Act, which provid- ' State legislatures followed suit, with elected ed a greater blueprint for the implementation officials in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New i of California's medical cannabis law. Since the Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont taking passage of the MMP, ASA has been responsi- I action to protect patients from criminal penal- ' ble for multiple landmark court cases, includ- ty. Understanding the need to address safe ing City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court, and affordable access to medical cannabis, County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML, I 1 Arizona, California, Colorado, Maine, New ? and County of Butte v. Superior Court. Such Jersey, New Mexico, and Rhode Island all cases affirm and expand the rights granted by adopted local or state laws that regulate its the CUA and MMP, and at the same time help 'p production and distribution. local officials better implement state law. Despite Gonzales v. Raich, a U.S. Supreme ' In August 2008, California's Attorney General Court ruling in 2005 that gave government i issued a directive to law enforcement on state I the discretion to enforce federal cannabis medical marijuana law. In addition to review laws even in medical cannabis states, more i ing the rights and responsibilities of patients states continue to adopt laws each year. and their caregivers, the guidelines affirmed I the legality of storefront dispensaries and With the election of President Barack Obama, outlined a set of requirements for state law a new approach to medical cannabis is taking compliance.The attorney general guidelines shape. In October 2009, the Justice Depart- also represent a roadmap by which local offi- ment issued guidelines discouraging U.S. vials can develop regulatory ordinances for Attorneys from investigating and prosecuting ! dispensaries. medical cannabis cases. While this new policy 1 specifically addresses enforcement, ASA con- tinues to work with Congress and the WHAT IS A MEDICAL CANNABIS President to push for expanded research and DISPENSING COLLECTIVE? I ! protection for all medical cannabis in the U.S. 1 The majority of medical marijuana (cannabis) The public advocacy of well-known cannabis j patients cannot cultivate their medicine for { __. _ ,i For more information,see wwwAmericansForSafeAccess.org or contact the MA office aL 1-888-979-4367 or 51 D-251-1856. 287 I I themselves and cannot find a caregiver to directed health care that is becoming a proto- I grow it for them. Most of California's estimat- type for the delivery of other health services. ed 300,000 patients obtain their medicine from a Medical Cannabis Dispensing MEDICAL CANNABIS DISPENSARIES ARE I Collective (MCDC), often referred to as a "dis LEGAL UNDER STATE LAW pensary." Dispensaries are typically storefront In an effort to clarify the voter initiative of I facilities that provide medical cannabis and fy other services to patients in need. As of early 1996 and aid in its implementation across the 2011, ASA estimates there are approximately state,the California legislature passed the 2,000 medical cannabis dispensaries in Medical Marijuana Program Act(MMP), or I California. Senate Bill 420, in 2003, establishing that qual- ified patients and primary caregivers may col- Dispensaries operate with a closed member- Iectively or cooperatively cultivate and ship that allows only qualified patients and distribute cannabis for medical purposes (Cal. I primary caregivers to obtain cannabis, and Health & Safety Code section 11362.775). The only after membership is approved (upon ver- Act also exempts collectives and cooperatives ification of patient documentation). Many dis- from criminal sanctions associated with "sales" pensaries offer on-site consumption, and maintaining a place where sales occur. providing a safe and comfortable place where patients can medicate. An increasing number In 2005, California's Third District Court of of dispensaries offer additional services for Appeal affirmed the legality of collectives and 1 their patient membership, including such sery cooperatives in the landmark case of People v. ices as: massage, acupuncture, legal trainings, Urziceanu, which held that the MMP provides free meals, or counseling. Research on the collectives and cooperatives a defense to mar- I social benefits for patients is discussed in the ijuana distribution charges. Another landmark last section of this report. decision from the Third District Court of Appeal in the case of County of Butte v. I Superior Court(2009) not only affirmed the { RATIONALE FOR MEDICAL CANNABIS legality of collectives but also found that col- DISPENSING COLLECTIVES lective members could contribute financially ( I While the Compassionate Use Act does not without having to directly participate in the explicitly discuss medical cannabis dispen- cultivation. caries, it calls for the federal and state govern- In August 2008, the State Attorney General I ments to "implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marl- issued guidelines declaring that "a properly juana to all patients in medical need of marl- , ari organized and operated collective or coopera- tive that dispenses medical marijuana through 1 juana" (Health & Safety Code § 11362.5)- This a storefront may be lawful under California portion of the law has been the basis for the law." The Attorney General provided law development of compassionate, community- based systems of access for patients in various enforcement with a list of operational prat—, parts of California. In some cases, that has tices for collectives to help ensure compliance meant the creation of patient run growing with state law. By adhering to a set of rules— including not-for-profit operation, the collet- 1 collectives that allow those with cultivation expertise to help other patients obtain medi- cine. In most cases, particularly in urban set- saries can operate lawfully and maintain legit- tings, that has meant the establishment of imacy. In addition, local officials can use the I medical cannabis dispensing collectives, or dis Attorney General guidelines to help them pensaries. These dispensaries are typically adopt local regulatory ordinances. organized and run by groups of patients and I their caregivers in a collective model of patient- In September 2010, the California Legislature `„. For more intormation,see www.American.sForSafeAccess org or contact the ASA office at 1-888.929-4367 or 510-751-1856. I 288 1 I I enacted Assembly Bill 2650, which states that January 2011, 42 cities and nine counties have medical marijuana dispensaries must be locat- enacted regulations, and many more are con- ed further than 600-ft from a school. By rec- sidering doing so soon. con- I ognizing "a medical marijuana cooperative, collective, dispensary, operator, establishment, Officials recognize their duty to implement or provider that is authorized by law to pos- state laws, even in instances where they may 1 sess, cultivate, or distribute medical marijuana not have previously supported medical and that has a storefront or mobile retail out- cannabis legislation. Duke Martin, former mayor pro tem of Ridgecrest said during a city let which ordinarily requires a local business council hearing on a local dispensary ordi- Il license," the Legislature has expressed its Hance, "it's something that's the law, and I intent that storefront dispensaries and deliv- will uphold the law." ery services are legal under California law. I This understanding of civic obligation was WHY PATIENTS NEED CONVENIENT echoed at the Ridgecrest hearing by then- DISPENSARIES Councilmember Ron Carter, now mayor pro who said, "I want to make sure every Item, While some patients with long-term illnesses thing is legitimate and above board. It's legal. or injuries have the time, space, and skill to It's not something we can stop, but we can cultivate their own cannabis, the majority of have an ordinance of regulations." ! patients, particularly those in urban settings, do not have the ability to produce it them- Similarly, Whittier Planning Commissioner R.D. selves. For those patients, dispensaries are the McDonnell spoke publicly of the benefits of ' only option for safe and legal access. This is all dispensary regulations at a city government the more true for those individuals who are hearing. "It provides us with reasonable pro- suffering from a sudden, acute injury or illness. tections," he said. "But at the same time pro- vides the opportunity for the legitimate ' Many of the most serious and debilitating operations." injuries and illnesses require immediate relief. A cancer patient, for instance, who has just Whither officials discussed the possibility of an I I begun chemotherapy will typically need outright ban on dispensary operations, but immediate access for help with nausea, which Councilmember Greg Nordback said, "It was L! is why a Harvard study found that 45% of the opinion of our city attorney that you can't I oncologists were already recommending ban them; it's against the law. You have to cannabis to their patients, even before it was come up with an area they can be in." legal in any state. It is unreasonable to Whittier passed its dispensary ordinance in exclude those patients most in need simply December 2005. Ibecause they are incapable of gardening or Placerville Police Chief George Nielson corn- cannot wait months for relief. mented that, "The issue of medical marijuana II WHAT COMMUNITIES ARE DOING TO continues to be somewhat controversial in our community, as I suspect and hear it HELP PATIENTS remains in other California communities. The ' Many communities in California have recog issue of 'safe access' is important to some and nized the essential service that dispensaries not to others. There was some objection to provide and have either tacitly allowed their the dispensary ordinance, but I would say it operation or adopted ordinances regulating was a vocal minority on the issue."' Ithem. Dispensary regulation is one way in which the cities can exert local control and ensure that the needs of patients and the I � community at large are being met. As of 1 t IFor more information,see www.AmericansForSateAcress.orq or contact the ASA nitre at 1-888-929-4367 or 510-251-1856. I 289 I I IMPACT OF DISPENSARIES AND REGULATORY ORDINANCES I ON COMMUNITIES IN CALIFORNIA 1 DISPENSARIES REDUCE CRIME AND for their members and staff more seriously IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY than many businesses. Security cameras are Some reports have suggested that dispen- often used both inside and outside the prem ' saries are magnets for criminal activity and ises, and security guards are often employed other undesirable behavior; which poses a to ensure safety. Both cameras and security problem for the community. But the experi guards serve as a general deterrent to crimi ' ence of those cities with dispensary regula- nal activity and other problems on the street. tions says otherwise. Crime statistics and the Those likely to engage in such activities tend accounts of local officials surveyed by ASA to move to a less-monitored area, thereby I indicate that crime is actually reduced by the ensuring a safe environment not only for dis- presence of a dispensary. And complaints pensary members and staff, but also for neigh- from citizens and surrounding businesses are bors and businesses in the surrounding area. I either negligible or are significantly reduced Residents in areas surrounding dispensaries with the implementation of local regulations.p g have reported improvements to the neighbor- This trend has led multiple cities and counties hood. Kirk C., a long time San Francisco resi- I i to consider regulation as a solution. Kern dent, commented at a city hearing, "I have lived in the same apartment along the County, which passed a dispensary ordinance p g in July 2006, is a case in point. The sheriff Divisadero corridor in San Francisco for the I there noted in his staff report that "regulato- past five years. Each store that has opened in ry oversight at the local levels helps prevent my neighborhood has been nicer, with many crime directly and indirectly related to illegal new restaurants quickly becoming some of I operations occurring under the pretense and the city's hottest spots. My neighborhood's protection of state laws authorizing Medical crime and vandalism seems to be going down Marijuana Dispensaries." Although dispensa- year after year. It strikes me that the dispen- ry-related I crime has not been a problem for saries have been a vital part of the improve- + the county, the regulations will help law ment that is going on in my neighborhood." enforcement determine the legitimacy of dis- Oakland city administrator Barbara Killey, I pensaries and their patients. who was responsible for the ordinance regu- The sheriff specifically pointed out that, lating dispensaries, noted that "The areas "existing dispensaries have not caused notice- around the dispensaries may be some of the I able law enforcement problems or secondary safest areas of Oakland now because of the effects for at least one year. As a result, the level of security, surveillance, etc...since the focus of the proposed Ordinance is narrowed ordinance passed." to insure Dispensary compliance with the Likewise, former Santa Rosa Mayor Jane j I law" (Kern County Staff Report, Proposed Bender noted that since her city passed its Ordinance Regulating Medical Cannabis ordinance, there appears to be "a decrease in I Dispensaries, July 11, 2006). criminal activity. There certainly has been a The presence of a dispensary in the neighbor- decrease in complaints. The city attorney says hood can actually improve public safety and there have been no complaints either from reduce crime. Most dispensaries take security citizens or from neighboring businesses." I i For more information,see www.AmericansForSatnAccess.nrq or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 510-251-1856. I 290 I I ✓r I Neighboring Sebastopol has had a similar pensaries and increased local crime can be ■ experience. Despite public opposition to med- seen in data from Los Angeles and San Diego. ical cannabis dispensaries, Sebastopol Police During the two-year period from 2008 to Chief Jeffrey Weaver admitted that for more 2010 in which Los Angeles saw the prolifera- than two years, "We've had no increased crime tion of more than 500 dispensaries,the over- associated [with Sebastopol's medical cannabis all crime rate in the city dropped considerably. Idispensary], no fights, no loitering, no increase A study commissioned by Los Angeles Police in graffiti, no increase in littering, zip." Chief Charlie Beck, comparing the number of crimes in 2009 at the city's banks and medical ... marijuana dispensaries, found that 71 rob- The parade of horrors that everyone predicted beries had occurred at the more than 350 banks in the city, compared to 47 robberies at I has not materialized.The sky has not fallen.To the more than 500 medical marijuana facili- ties.contrary...Californiajurlsdictions have ties. Chief Beck observed that, "banks are P more likely to get robbed than medical marl- ' shown that having medical cannabis in place juana dispensaries," and that the claim that does not impact...public safety." —San dispensaries attract crime "doesn't really bear out." In San Diego, where some officials have Francisco Supervisor David Campos made similar allegations about increased Icrime associated with dispensaries, an exami- Those dispensaries that go through the per- nation of city police reports by a local paper, d mitting process or otherwise comply with the San Diego CityBeat, found that as of late local ordinances tend, by their very nature, to 2009 the number of crimes in areas with dis- be those most interested in meeting commu- was frequently lower than it was nity standards and being good neighbors. before the dispensary opened or, at worst, I Many local officials surveyed by ASA said dis- stayed the same. pensaries operating in their communities have presented no problems, or what problems WHY DIVERSION OF MEDICAL CANNABIS ' there may have been significantly diminished IS TYPICALLY NOT A PROBLEM once an ordinance or other regulation was One of the concerns of public officials is that instituted. dispensaries make possible or even encourage ISeveral officials said that regulatory ordi- the resale of cannabis on the street. But the nances had significantly improved relations experience of those cities that have instituted with other businesses and the community at ordinances is that such problems, which are I large. An Oakland city council staff member rare in the first place, quickly disappear. In noted that prior to adopting a local ordinance, addition to being monitored by law enforce- the city had received reports of break-ins. ment, dispensaries universally have strict rules I i However, the council staff member said that about how members are to behave in and with the adoption of Oakland's dispensary around the facility. Many have "good neigh- ordinance, "That kind of activity has stopped. bor" trainings for their members that empha- That danger has been eliminated." Assistant size sensitivity to the concerns of neighbors, City Administrator Arturo Sanchez, a nuisance and all dispensaries absolutely prohibit the enforcement officer, affirmed that since 2004 resale of cannabis. Anyone violating that pro- ' he has "never received a nuisance complaint hibition is typically banned from any further ` concerning lawfully established medical marl- contact with the dispensary. juana dispensaries in Oakland...[or] had to As Oakland's city administrator for the regula- initiate an enforcement action." tory ordinance explains, "dispensaries them- The absence of any connection between dis- selves have been very good at self policing 1 __. ica------.._.__...--------.�.__ _ .w..,.. __..__.. _._.._._I For more information,see wvvw AmPr .� nsForSatoAccess.orq or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 510-251-1856. _ 1 291 against resale__ _._. ...m �.-.. _......._._ . because they understand they ply because new people are coming to access 1 9 Y Y pY can lose their permit if their patients resell." services, increasing foot traffic past other In the event of an illegal resale, local law establishments. In many communities, the enforcement has at its disposal all of the opening of a dispensary has helped revitalize many legal penalties provided by the state. an area.While patients tend to opt for dis This all adds up to a safer street environment pensaries that are close and convenient, par- with fewer drug-related problems than titularly since travel can be difficult, many before dispensary operations were permitted patients will travel to dispensary locations in in the area. The experience of the City of parts of town they would not otherwise visit. Oakland is a good example of this phenome- Even if patients are not immediately utilizing non. The city's legislative analyst, Lupe the services or purchasing the goods offered Schoenberger, stated that, "...[P]eople feel by neighboring businesses, they are more like- safer when they're walking down the street. ly to eventually patronize those businesses I The level of marijuana street sales has signifi- because of convenience. cantly reduced." ASA's survey of officials whose cities have passed dispensary regulations found that the 1 "The areas around the dispensaries may be vast majority of businesses either adjoining or near dispensaries had reported no problems some of the most safest areas of Oakland now associated with a dispensary opening after 1 because of the level of security, surveillance, etc. the implementation of regulations. since the ordinance passed." Kriss Worthington, longtime councilmember —Barbara Killey, Oakland in Berkeley, said in support of a dispensary there, "They have been a responsible neigh- bor and vital organization to our diverse com- Dispensaries operating with the permission of munity. Since their opening, they have done 1 the city are also more likely to appropriately an outstanding job keeping the building utilize law enforcement resources themselves, clean, neat, organized and safe. In fact, we reporting any crimes directly to the appropri- have had no calls from neighbors complaining 1 ate agencies. And dispensary operators and about them, which is a sign of respect from their patient members tend to be more safety the community. In Berkeley, even average conscious than the general public, resulting in restaurants and stores have complaints from 1 greater vigilance and better preemptive neighbors." measures. The reduction of crime in areas around dispensaries has been reported anec- dotally by law enforcement in several commu mayor of the City of Santa Cruz, said about pities. the dispensary that opened there last year, "The immediately neighboring businesses have been uniformly supportive or neutral. , DISPENSARIES CAN BE GOOD NEIGHBORS There have been no complaints either about Medical cannabis dispensing collectives are establishing it or running it." typically positive additions to the neighbor- And Dave Turner, mayor of Fort Bragg, noted 1 hoods in which they locate, bringing addition that before the passage of regulations there al customers to neighboring businesses and were "plenty of complaints from both neigh- reducing crime in the immediate area. ' boring businesses and concerned citizens," Like any new business that serves a different but since then, it is no longer a problem. customer base than the existing businesses in Public officials understand that, when it the area, dispensaries increase the revenue of comes to dispensaries, they must balance both 1 other businesses in the surrounding area sim- the humanitarian needs of patients and the For more information,see wwwAmericansForSeteAccess.org or contact the ASA office at 1-888-979-4367 or 510-251-1856. 292 1 I I concerns of the public, especially those of ested parities in advance of adopting an ordi- nance while keeping the patients' needs fore- Oakland City Councilmember Nancy J. Nadel most, problems that may seem inevitable I ; wrote in an open letter to her fellow col- never arise." leagues across the state, "Local government Mike Rotkin of Santa Cruz stated that since the has a responsibility to the medical needs of its people, even when its not a politically easy city enacted an ordinance for dispensaries, I choice to make. We have found it possible to Things have calmed down. The police are build regulations that address the concerns of happy with the ordinance, and that has made I neighbors, local businesses, law enforcement things a lot easier. I think the fact that we took and the general public, while not compromis- the time to give people who wrote us respect- ing the needs of the patients themselves. ful and detailed explanations of what we were I We've found that by working with all inter- doing and why made a real difference." !. 2 I I I BENEFITS OF DISPENSARIES TO THE PATIENT COMMUNITY I � .__ ____ .__W.___ _____ - _.._ __ _ _ __ j DISPENSARIES PROVIDE MANY BENEFITS issue, requiring the involvement and leader- TO THE SICK AND SUFFERING ship of local departments of public health. A Safe and legal access to cannabis is the reason pro-active healthcare-based approach can dispensaries have been created by patients effectively address problems before they arise, and caregivers around the state. For many and communities can design methods for I people, dispensaries remove significant barri- safe, legal access to medical marijuana while ers to obtaining cannabis. Patients in urban keeping the patients' needs foremost." v areas with no space to cultivate cannabis, West Hollywood Mayor John Duran agreed, ' those without the requisite gardening skills to noting that with the high number of HIV-pos- grow their own, and, most critically, those itive residents in the area, Some of them who face the sudden onset of a serious illness require medical marijuana to offset the med- I who have suffered a catastrophic illness— ications they take for HIV." ' all tend to rely on dispensaries as a compas- sionate, community-based solution as a Jane Bender, former mayor of Santa Rosa, preferable alternative to potentially anger- ' says, "There are legitimate patients in our ill d ous illicit market transactions. community, and I'm glad they have a safe means of obtaining their medicine." Many elected officials in California recognize And Mike Rotkin of Santa Cruz said that this I the importance of dispensaries to their con is also an important matter for his city's citi- stituents. As Nathan Miley, former Oakland city councilmember and now Alameda County zens: "The council considers it a high priority and has taken considerable heat to speak out I supervisor said in a letter to his colleagues, and act on the issue." I "When designing regulations, it is crucial to 1 remember that at its core this is a healthcare It was a similar decision of social conscience _ / For more information, .... tion,see mmmAmericansiorSafenccess.orq or contact the ASA office at 1-8M-929-4357 or 510-251-1856 293 1 I that lead to Placerville's city council putting a staff, and services offered. The study found regulatory ordinance in place. Former that "medical cannabis patients have created Councilmember Marian Washburn told her a system of dispensing medical cannabis that I colleagues that "as you get older, you know also includes services such as counseling, people with diseases who suffer terribly, so entertainment and support groups, all impor- that is probably what I get down to after con- tant components of coping with chronic ill- sidering all the other components." ness." She also found that levels of I satisfaction with the care received at dispen- saries ranked significantly higher than those "There are legitimate patients in our reported for health care nationally. I community, and I'm glad they have a safe Patients who use the dispensaries studied uni- formly reported being well satisfied with the I means of obtaining their medicine." —Jane services they received, giving an 80% satisfac- Bender, Santa Rosa tion rating. The most important factors for patients in choosing a medical cannabis dis- pensary were: feeling comfortable and secure, I While dispensaries provide a unique way for familiarity with the dispensary, and having a patients to obtain the cannabis their doctors rapport with the staff. In their comments, have recommended, they typically offer far patients tended to note the helpfulness and I more that is of benefit to the health and wel- kindness of staff and the support found in the fare of those suffering from both chronic and presence of other patients. acute medical problems. I Dispensaries are often called "clubs" in part MANY DISPENSARIES PROVIDE KEY because many of them offer far more than a HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES clinical setting for obtaining cannabis. Dispensaries offer many cannabis-related serv- I Recognizing the isolation that many seriously ices that patients cannot otherwise obtain. ill and injured people experience, many dis- Among them is an array of cannabis varieties, pensary operators choose to offer a wider some of which are more useful for certain I array of social services, including everything afflictions than others, and staff awareness of from a place to congregate and socialize to what types of cannabis other patients report help with finding housing and offering meals. to be helpful. In other words, one variety of I The social support patients receive in these cannabis may be effective for pain control settings has far-reaching benefits that also while another may be better for combating influences the development of other patient- nausea. Dispensaries allow for the pooling of I based care models. information about these differences and the opportunity to access the type of cannabis RESEARCH SUPPORTS THE DISPENSARY likely to be most beneficial. I MODEL Cannabis-related services include making A 2006 study by Amanda Reiman, Ph.D. of the cannabis available in other forms for patients School of Social Welfare at the University of who cannot or do not want to smoke it.While I California, Berkeley examined the experience most patients prefer to have the ability to of 130 patients spread among seven different modulate the dosing that smoking easily dispensaries in the San Francisco Bay Area. Dr. allows, for others,the effects of extracts or edi- ' Reiman's study cataloged the patients' demo- ble cannabis products are preferable. Dispen- graphic information, health status, consumer saries typically offer a wide array of edible satisfaction, and use of services, while also products for those purposes. Many dispensaries I L considering the dispensaries' environment, also offer classes on how to grow your own I For more information,see www.AmericansForSafeAccess.orq or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 510-251-1856. I 294 I I Icannabis, classes on legal matters,trainings for health-care advocacy, and other seminars. Beyond providing safe and legal access to "Local government has a responsibility to the cannabis, the dispensaries studied also offer medical needs of its people, even when it's not important social services to patients, including a politically easy choice to make.We have found ' counseling, help with housing and meals, hos- pice and other care referrals. Among the it possible to build regulations that address the broader services the study found in dispen-y p concerns of neighbors, local businesses law saries are support groups, including groups I enforcement and the general public,while not for women, veterans, and men; creativity and art groups, including groups for writers, quit- compromising the needs of the patients ters, crochet, and crafts; and entertainment themselves. We've found that by working with I options, including bingo, open mic nights, poetry readings, internet access, libraries, and all interested parties in advance of adopting an puzzles. Clothing drives and neighborhood ordinance,while keeping the patients' needs I parties are among the activities that patients can also participate in through their dispensary. foremost, problems that may seem inevitable Examples of health services offered at dispen- saries across California: —Nancy Nadel, Oakland • Naturopathic medicine I • Reiki • Ayurvedic medicine Dispensaries offer chronically ill patients even more than safe and legal access to cannabis • Chinese medicine and an array of social services.The study • Chiropractic medicine found that dispensaries also provided other • Acupuncture social benefits for the chronically ill, an impor- • Massage tant part of the bigger picture: • Craniosacral Therapy I • Rolfing Therapy Beyond the support that medical cannabis • Group & Individual Yoga Instruction patients receive from services is the sup- • Hypnotherapy port received from fellow patients, some I • Homeopathy of whom are experiencing the same or •Western Herbalists similar physical/psychological symptoms... • Individual Counseling It is possible that the mental health bene- • Integrative Health Counseling fits derived from the social support of fel- 1 • Nutrition & Diet Counseling low patients is an important part of the • Limited Physical Therapy healing process, separate from the medici- • Medication Interaction Counseling nal value of the cannabis itself. I • Condition-based Support Groups p Several researchers and physicians who have studied the issue of the patient experience Social services such as counseling and support with dispensaries have concluded that there groups were reported to be the most corn- are other important positive effects stemming monly and regularly used, with two-thirds of from a dispensary model that includes a corn- patients reporting that they use social services ponent of social support groups. I at dispensaries one to two times per week. Additionally, life services such as free food Dr. Reiman notes that, "support groups may I and housing help were used at least once or have the ability to address issues besides the I twice a week by 22% of those surveyed. illness itself that might contribute to long- term physical and emotional health outcomes, For more Information,see www.AmericansrorSafeAccess.org or contact the ASA office at 1-888-979-4367 or 510-251-1856. I 295 I such as the prevalence of depression among report finding solace with other patients who I the chronically ill." are also grieving or facing end-of-life deci- For those who suffer the most serious illness sions. A medical study published in 1998 con I es, such as HIV/AIDS and terminal cancer,illness- cluded that the patient-to-patient contact groups of people with similar conditions can associated with the social club model was the also help fellow patients through the grieving best therapeutic setting for ill people. process. Many patients who have lost or are Cannabis dispensaries have been operating 1 losing friends and partners to terminal illness successfully in California for more than 14 I I CONCLUSION ,---- After more than 14 years of existence, dispen- appropriate law enforcemen t authorities. rities. ,' saries are proving to be an asset to the corn- More importantly, dispensaries benefit the I munities they serve, as well as the larger community by providing safe access for those community in which they operate. This is especially the case when public officials who have the greatest difficulty getting the medicine their doctors recommend: the most } choose to implement local ordinances that recognize the lawful operation of dispen- seriously ill and injured. Many dispensaries saries. Since the Medical Marijuana Program also offer essential services to patients, such as Act was enacted by the California legislature help with food and housing. I in 2004, more than 50 localities have adopted Medical and public health studies have also ordinances regulating dispensaries. shown that the social-club model of most dis- By surveying local officials and monitoring pensaries is of significant benefit to the over- I regulatory activity throughout the State of all health of patients. The result is that California, ASA has shown that once working medical cannabis patients rate their satisfac- regulatory ordinances are in place, dispen- tion with dispensaries as far greater than the j I saries are typically viewed favorably by public customer satisfaction ratings given to health officials, neighbors, businesses, and the corn- care agencies in general. munity at large, and that regulatory ordi- ' Public officials across the state, in both urban nances can and do improve an area, both and rural communities, have been outspoken socially and economically. in praise of the dispensary regulatory schemes Dispensaries—now expressly legal under they enacted and the benefits to the patients California state law—are helping revitalize and others living in their communities. neighborhoods by reducing crime and bring- ing new customers to surrounding businesses. As a compassionate, community-based They improve public safety by increasing the response to the medical needs of more than security presence in neighborhoods, reducing 300,000 sick and suffering Californians, dis- illicit market marijuana sales, and ensuring pensaries, and the regulations under which I that any criminal activity gets reported to the they operate, are working. j For more information,see www.AmrricansForSafeAccess.orr or contact thr ASA � � ..251- 1 � office at 1-888-9Z9-4367 or 51U-251-1856. 296 I 1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISPENSARY REGULATIONS If N years with very few problems. And, although Of the four members of the commission I 4 the legislature and courts have acted to make appointed by the City Council, two mem- dispensaries legal under state law, the ques- bers shall represent the interests of City tion of how to implement appropriate zoning neighborhood associations or groups, one I laws and business licensing is still coming member shall represent the interests of j before local officials all across the state. What the medical marijuana community, and follows are recommendations on matters to one member shall represent the interests I consider, based on adopted code as well as of the public health community. ASA's extensive experience working with community leaders and elected officials. ADMINISTRATION OF DISPENSARY I REGULATIONS ARE BEST HANDLED BY COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT HEALTH OR PLANNING DEPARTMENTS, In order to appropriately resolve conflict in NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES Ithe community and establish a process by Reason: To ensure that qualified patients, which complaints and concerns can be caregivers, and dispensaries are protected, reviewed, it can often be helpful to create a general regulatory oversight duties—includ- I community oversight committee. Such com ing permitting, record maintenance, and mittees, if fair and balanced, can provide a related protocols—should be the responsibili- means for the voices of all affected parties to ty of the local department of public health be heard, and to quickly resolve problems. (DPH) or planning department. Given the The Ukiah City Council created such a task statutory mission and responsibilities of DPH, force in 2005; what follows is how they it is the natural choice and best-suited agency a to address the regulation of medical cannabis I defined the group: dispensing collectives. Law enforcement agen- The Ukiah Medical Marijuana Review and cies are ill-suited for handling such matters, Oversight Commission shall consist of seven having little or no expertise in health and I members nominated and appointed pur- medical affairs. suant to this section.The Mayor shall nomi- nate three members to the commission, and Examples of responsible agencies and officials: I i the City Council shall appoint, by motion, • Angels Camp—City Administrator four other members to the commission... • Citrus Heights—City Manager Of the three members nominated by the • Cotati—City Manager I Mayor,the Mayor shall nominate one • Dunsmuir—Planning Commission member to represent the interests of City • Eureka--Dept of Community Development neighborhood associations or groups, one • Laguna Woods—City Manager I member to represent the interests of med- ical marijuana patients, and one member • Los Angeles—Building and Safety to represent the interests of the law • Malibu—City Manager enforcement community. • Napa—City Council • Palm Springs—City Manager Ifor more information,see www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org or contact the ASA office ai 1-888.929-4357 or 510-251-1856. I 297 I • Plymouth—City Administrator • Calaveras County • Sebastopol—Planning Department • Kern County • San Francisco—Dept. of Public Health • City and County of San Francisco I • San Mateo—License Committee • San Mateo County • Santa Barbara—Community Development • Sonoma County • Selma—City Manager • Stockton—City Manager RESTRICTIONS ON WHERE DISPENSARIES I • Visalia—City Planner CAN LOCATE ARE OFTEN UNNECESSARY AND CAN CREATE BARRIERS TO ACCESS ARBITRARY CAPS ON THE NUMBER OF Reason: As described in this report, regulated I DISPENSARIES CAN BE COUNTER- dispensaries do not generally increase crime PRODUCTIVE or bring other harm to their neighborhoods, Reason: Policymakers do not need to set arbi- regardless of where they are located. And I trary limitations on the number of dispensing since travel is difficult for many patients, cities collectives allowed to operate because, as and counties should take care to avoid unnec- with other services, competitive market forces essary restrictions on where dispensaries can I and consumer choice will be decisive. locate. Patients benefit from dispensaries Dispensaries that provide quality care and being convenient and accessible, especially if patient services to their memberships will the patients are disabled or have conditions I flourish, while those that do not will fail. that limit their mobility. Capping the number of dispensaries limits It is unnecessary and burdensome for patients consumer choice, which can result in both and providers to restrict dispensaries to indus- , decreased quality of care and less affordable trial corners, far away from public transit and medicine. Limiting the number of dispensing other services. Depending on a city's popula- collectives allowed to operate may also force tion density, it can also be extremely detri- 1 patients with limited mobility to travel farther mental to set excessive proximity restrictions for access than they would otherwise need to. (to residences, schools or other facilities)that can make it impossible for dispensaries to I Artificially limiting the supply for patients can locate anywhere within the city limits, thereby result in an inability to meet demand, which establishing a de facto ban on dispensing. It is in turn may lead to unintended and undesir- important to balance patient needs with able effects such as lines outside of dispen- neighborhood concerns in this process. I saries, increased prices, and lower quality medicine, in addition to increased illicit-mar- ket activity. PATIENTS BENEFIT FROM ON-SITE 1 CONSUMPTION AND PROPER Examples of cities and counties without VENTILATION SYSTEMS numerical caps on dispensaries: • Dunsmuir Reason: Dispensaries that allow members to I • Fart Bragg consume medicine on-site have positive psy • Laguna Woods chosocial health benefits for chronically ill • Long Beach people who are otherwise isolated. On-site • Placerville consumption encourages dispensary members I to take advantage of the support services that • Redding can improve their quality of life and, in some • Ripon cases, even prolong it. Researchers have I 1 • San Mateo shown that support groups like those offered • Santa Barbara by dispensaries are effective for patients with • Selma a variety of serious illnesses. Participants active I • Tulare I1 \__ _ �__. __ ----------------------_.._____ _ J For more information,see wwnw.AmericansForSafeAccess.oro or contact the ASA office di 1-88&929-1367 or 510-251-1856 I I Iin support services are less anxious and and/or "primary care givers," are organ- depressed, make better use of their time, and ized to provide education, referral, or net- are more likely to return to work than work services, and facilitation or assistance II patients who receive only standardized care, in the lawful, "retail" distribution of med- regardless of whether they have serious psy- ical cannabis. "Dispensary" means any chiatric symptoms. On-site consumption is also facility or location where the primary pur- I important for patients who face restrictions to pose is to dispense medical cannabis (i.e., off-site consumption, such as those in subsi- marijuana) as a medication that has been dized or other housing arrangements that recommended by a physician and where I prohibit smoking. In addition, on-site con- medical cannabis is made available to sumption provides an opportunity for and/or distributed by or to two or more of patients to share information about effective the following: a primary caregiver and/or use of cannabis and of specialized delivery a qualified patient, in strict accordance I methods, such as vaporizers, which do not with California Health and Safety Code require smoking. Section 11362.5 et seq. A "dispensary" Examples of localities that permit on-site con- I shall not include dispensing by primary sumption (many stipulate ventilation require- caregivers to qualified patients in the fol- lowing locations and uses, as long as the menus): location of such uses are otherwise regu- I • Alameda County lated by this Code or applicable law: a • Berkeley clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 of • Kern County Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, I ± • Laguna Woods a health care facility licensed pursuant to • Richmond Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health and • San Francisco Safety Code, a residential care facility for • San Mateo County persons with chronic life-threatening ill- ' • South El Monte ness licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, DIFFERENTIATING DISPENSARIES FROM residential care facility for the elderly I PRIVATE PATIENT COLLECTIVES IS licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of IMPORTANT Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, I Reason: Private patient collectives, in which a residential hospice, or a home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 of several patients grow their medicine collet Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, tively at a private location, should not be required to follow the same restrictions that as long as any such use complies strictly Iare placed on retail dispensaries, since they with applicable law including, but not lim- are a different type of operation. A too- 11362.5 to, Health and Safety Code Section broadly written ordinance may inadvertently 11362.5 et seq., or a qualified patient's or Iput untenable restrictions on individual caregiver's place of residence. patients and caregivers who are providing either for themselves or a few others. PATIENTS BENEFIT FROM ACCESS TO I EDIBLES AND MEDICAL CANNABIS Example: Santa Rosa's adopted ordinance, CONSUMPTION DEVICES provision 10-40.030 (F): I "Medical cannabis dispensing collective," Reason: Not all patients can or want to smoke cannabis. Many find tinctures (cannabis hereinafter "dispensary," shall be con extracts) or edibles (such as baked goods con- strued to include any association, coopera- taining cannabis)to be more effective for I five, affiliation, or collective of persons their conditions. Allowing dispensaries to i where multiple "qualified patients" For more intormation see vwvw.AmericansForSafeAcceSS.org or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 510-251-1856. I 299 I carry these items is vital to patients getting • Citrus Heights I the best level of care possible. For patients • Eureka who have existing respiration problems or • Laguna Woods who otherwise have an aversion to smoking, • Long Beach I edibles and extracts are essential. • Los Angeles (city of) Conversely, for patients who do choose to • Malibu smoke or vaporize, they need to procure the • Napa tools to do so. Prohibiting dispensaries from • Palm Springs carrying medical cannabis consumption • Redding devices, often referred to as paraphernalia, • Richmond I forces patients to go elsewhere to procure • Santa Barbara these items. Additionally, when dispensaries ' Santa Cruz do carry these devices, informed dispensary • Sebastopol I• South El Monte staff can explain their usage, and different functions, to new patients. • Stockton • Sutter Creek I Examples of localities allowing dispensaries to • West Hollywood carry edibles and delivery devices: • Alameda County • Albany • Kern County I • Angels Camp • Sonoma County • Berkeley • Cotati I 1 RESOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION I A downloadable PDF of this report is online at ASA Forums AmericansForSafeAccess.org/DispensaryReport AmericansForSafeAccess.org/forum I A model dispensary ordinance can be seen at Medical and Scientific Information AmericansForSafeAccess.org/ModelOrdinance. AmericansForSafeAccess.org/medical i I A regularly updated list of ordinances, mora- Legal Information toriums, and bans adopted by California cities AmericansForSafeAccess.org/legal and counties can be found at Become a member of ASA I AmericansForSafeAccess.org/regulations. AmericansForSafeAccess.org/join You can find ASA chapters in your area at ° AmericansForSafeAccess.org/Chapters. Contact ASA to order the DVD "Medical Cannabis in California interviews with ASA Blog elected officials and leaders who are imple- AmericansForSafeAccess.org/blog menting safe and effective regulations. I 1 For more information,see www.American.sForSafoAccess.org or contact the ASA office at 1-888-979-4367 or 510-251-1355 I 300 I 1 APPENDIX A CALIFORNIA CITIES AND COUNTIES THAT Sebastopol HAVE ADOPTED ORDINANCES Selma f I REGULATING DISPENSARIES South El Monte (as of February 2011) Stockton Tulare ' For an updated list, go to: Visalia i AmericansForSafeAccess.org/regulations West Hollywood j City Ordinances (42) Whittier ' Yucca Valley Albany County Ordinances (9) Angels Camp Alameda ' Berkeley Calaveras 6, Citrus Heights Kern Cotati Diamond Bar San Luis Obispo ' San Mateo Dunsmuir j Santa Barbara Eureka Santa Clara Fort Bragg Jackson Sonoma La Puente Laguna Woods Long Beach Los Angeles Malibu ' 1 Mammoth Lakes Martinez Napa Oakland Palm Springs Placerville ` Plymouth i Redding Richmond Ripon ' Sacramento San Carlos San Francisco ' San Jose San Mateo Santa Barbara I I Santa Cruz Santa Rosa For more information,see www.AmencansForSafeArcess.orq or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929 4367 or 510-251-1856 301 I I APPENDIX B I 1 ASA'S QUICK GUIDE FOR EVALUATING • Will each MCDC be required to apply for a PROPOSED MEDICAL MARIJUANA conditional use permit, or does the I DISPENSARY ORDINANCES IN CALIFORNIA ordinance specify MCDCs as an This is a quick guide to what should and enumerated business? should not be in city and county ordinances • Are there proximity restrictions or "buffer I to best support safe access for medical zones" from so-called "sensitive uses" cannabis patients. which will make locating a dispensary onerous? What the ordinance MUST include: • Has a map been prepared that shows I • Allowance for over-the-counter/storefront where the ordinance will require MCDCs sales (sometimes called reimbursements, to locate? contributions, or not-for-profit sales) - I • Allowance for patients to medicate on-site Does the ordinance provide for a community • Allowance for sale of cannabis edibles and oversight committee tasked with any licensing concentrated extracts or appeals processes? I • Distinction between Medical Cannabis • Will the oversight committee include Dispensing Collectives (MCDCs) and patients, activists, MCDC operators, and private patient collectives or cooperatives members of the local community? I • What to look out for in proposed ordinances: What are the MCDC requirements for book- Is the general language and focus framed as a keeping and records disclosure? I medical or healthcare issue, rather than a • Does the ordinance allow MCDCs to keep criminal justice or law enforcement problem? identifying information about its members off-site, to protect patient I Does the ordinance affirm that MCDCs should identities? be organized to serve patients and have a •"not-for-profit" business model? Does law enforcement have unfettered access to patient records or is a subpoena Is there a cap on the number of MCDCs required? allowed to operate that could negatively - 1 impact accessibility, affordability and quality? Are there caps on the number of patient- ' • How was the MCDC cap number members an MCDC can serve? determined (per capita, per pharmacy)? Is on-site cultivation prohibited for MCDCs? • What criteria will be used to approve and I license MCDCs? • Will quality through competition be supported? Zoning considerations: I hor more information,see vwwv.AmericansForSarAccess.org or contact the AA office at 1-888-9294367 or 51U-?51- 856. il I 302 I 1 I APPENDIX C ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF used for the general welfare of its members I CALIFORNIA, GUIDELINES FOR THE or equitably distributed to members in the SECURITY AND NON-DIVERSION OF form of cash, property, credits, or services. MARIJUANA GROWN FOR MEDICAL USE (Ibid.) Cooperatives must follow strict rules on organization, articles, elections, and distribu- 1 August 2008 Lion of earnings, and must report individual GUIDELINES REGARDING COLLECTIVES transactions from individual members each AND COOPERATIVES year (id. at § 12200, et seq). Agricultural coop- I eratives are likewise nonprofit corporate enti- Under California law, medical marijuana "since since they are not organized to make patients and primary caregivers may "associ- profit for themselves, as such, or for their ate within the State of California in order col members, as such, but only for their members I lectively or cooperatively to cultivate as producers" (Food &Agric. Code, § 54033). marijuana for medical purposes" (§ Agricultural cooperatives share many charac- I 11362.775) .The following guidelines are teristics with consumer cooperatives (e.g., id. I meant to apply to qualified patients and pri at § 54002, et seq). Cooperatives should not 6 mary caregivers who come together to collet purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non- tively or cooperatively cultivate members; instead, they should only provide a physician-recommended marijuana. means for facilitating or coordinating transac- IA. Business Forms: Any group that is collet- tions between members. tively or cooperatively cultivating and distrib- 2. Collectives: California law does not define uting marijuana for medical purposes should collectives, but they are commonly defined as I be organized and operated in a manner that 'a business, farm, etc.,jointly owned and ensures the security of the crop and safe operated by the members of a group." guards against diversion for non-medical pur- Applying this definition, a collective should be I poses. The following are guidelines to help an organization that merely facilitates the col- cooperatives and collectives operate within laborative efforts of patient and caregiver the law, and to help law enforcement deter- members—including the allocation of costs mine whether they are doing so. and revenues. As such, a collective is not a I 1. Statutory Cooperatives: A cooperative statutory entity, but as a practical matter it must file articles of incorporation with the might have to organize as some form of busi- state and conduct its business for the mutual ness to carry out its activities. The collective U benefit of its members (Corp. Code, § 12201, should not purchase marijuana from, or sell 12300). No business may call itself a "coopers to, non-members; instead, it should only pro- tive" (or "coop") unless it is properly organ- vide a means for facilitating or coordinating I ized and registered as such a corporation transactions among members. I under the Corporations or Food and B. Guidelines for the Lawful Operation of Agricultural Code (Id. at § 12311(b)). a Cooperative or Collective: Collectives and Cooperative corporations are "democratically cooperatives should be organized with suffi- I controlled and are not organized to make a dent structure to ensure security, non-diver- profit for themselves, as such, or for their sion of marijuana to illicit markets, and members, as such, but primarily for their compliance with all state and local laws.The I members as patrons" (Id. at § 12201). The following are some suggested guidelines and earnings and savings of the business must be practices for operating collective growing I For more information,SE'C'wvwd.AmericansFoSafeAccess.orq or contact the ASA°fine,at 1-888-929-1367 or 510-251.1856. I 303 II operations to help ensure lawful operation. 1. f) Enforce conditions of membership by ' I Non-Profit Operation: Nothing in Proposition excluding members whose identification 215 or the MMP authorizes collectives, coop- card or physician recommendation are eratives, or individuals to profit from the sale invalid or have expired, or who are caught I or distribution of marijuana. (See, e.g., § diverting marijuana for non-medical use. 11362.765(a) ["nothing in this section shall 4. Collectives Should Acquire, Possess, authorize . . . any individual or group to culti- and Distribute Only Lawfully Cultivated I vate or distribute marijuana for profit"]. Marijuana: Collectives and cooperatives 2. Business Licenses, Sales Tax, and should acquire marijuana only from their con- Sellers' Permits: The State Board of stituent members, because only marijuana Equalization has determined that medical grown by a qualified patient or his or her pri- mary caregiver may lawfully be transported marijuana transactions are subject to sales tax, by, or distributed to, other members of a col- regardless of whether the individual or group lective or cooperative (§§ 11362.765, makes a profit, and those engaging in trans- 11362.775). The collective or cooperative may I actions involving medical marijuana must then allocate it to other members of the obtain a Seller's Permit. Some cities and coup- group. Nothing allows marijuana to be pur- ties also require dispensing collectives and chased from outside the collective or coopera- 1 cooperatives to obtain business licenses. tive for distribution to its members. Instead, 3. Membership Application and the cycle should be a closed circuit of marijua- Verification: When a patient or primary care- na cultivation and consumption with no pur- I giver wishes to join a collective or coopera- chases or sales to or from non-members. To tive, the group can help prevent the diversion help prevent diversion of medical marijuana of marijuana for non-medical use by having to nonmedical markets, collectives and coop- potential members complete a written mem- eratives should document each member's con- I bership application. The following application tribution of labor, resources, or money to the guidelines should be followed to help ensure enterprise. They also should track and record that marijuana grown for medical use is not the source of their marijuana. I ( diverted to illicit markets: 5. Distribution and Sales to Non- a) Verify the individual's status as a qualified Members are Prohibited: State law allows patient or primary caregiver. Unless he or primary caregivers to be reimbursed for cer- she has a valid state medical marijuana taro services (including marijuana cultivation), I identification card, this should involve but nothing allows individuals or groups to personal contact with the recommending sell or distribute marijuana to non-members. physician (or his or her agent), verification Accordingly, a collective or cooperative may ! I of the physician's identity, as well as his or not distribute medical marijuana to any per- her state licensing status. Verification of son who is not a member in good standing of primary caregiver status should include the organization. A dispensing collective or contact with the qualified patient, as well cooperative may credit its members for marl- I as validation of the patient's juana they provide to the collective, which it recommendation. Copies should be made may then allocate to other members (§ of the physician's recommendation or 11362.765(c)). Members also may reimburse I identification card, if any; the collective or cooperative for marijuana b) Have the individual agree not to that has been allocated to them. Any mone- distribute marijuana to non-members; tary reimbursement that members provide to c) Have the individual agree not to use the the collective or cooperative should only be 1 marijuana for other than medical an amount necessary to cover overhead costs purposes; and operating expenses. d) Maintain membership records on-site or 6. Permissible Reimbursements and I have them reasonably available; Allocations: Marijuana grown at a collective e) Track when members' medical marijuana or cooperative for medical purposes may be: recommendation and/or identification cards expire; and a) Provided free to qualified patients and I ...., , For more information,see www.AmericansForSateAccess.org or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 510-251-1856. 1 304 1 1 primary caregivers who are members of 1. Storefront Dispensaries: Although med- the collective or cooperative; ical marijuana "dispensaries" have been oper b) Provided in exchange for services ating in California for years, dispensaries, as 1 rendered to the entity; such, are not recognized under the law. As c) Allocated based on fees that are noted above,the only recognized group enti- reasonably calculated to cover overhead ties are cooperatives and collectives (§ I costs and operating expenses; or d) Any combination of the above. 11362.775). It is the opinion of this Office that a properly organized and operated collective 7. Possession and Cultivation Guidelines: or cooperative that dispenses medical mari If a person is acting as primary caregiver to juana through a storefront may be lawful I more than one patient under section under California law, but that dispensaries 11362.7(d)(2), he or she may aggregate the that do not substantially comply with the possession and cultivation limits for each guidelines set forth in sections IV(A) and (B), I patient. For example, applying the MMP's above, are likely operating outside the protec- tions basic possession guidelines, if a caregiver is of Proposition 215 and the MMP, and responsible for three patients, he or she may that the individuals operating such entities possess up to 24 oz. of marijuana (8 oz. per may be subject to arrest and criminal prosecu- ti patient) and may grow 18 mature or 36 tion under California law. For example, dis- pensaries that merely require patients to immature plants. Similarly, collectives and complete a form summarily designating the cooperatives may cultivate and transport mar- 1 ijuana in aggregate amounts tied to its mem- business owner as their primary caregiver— and then offering marijuana in exchange for l bership numbers. Any patient or primary cash "donations" - are likely unlawful (Peron, caregiver exceeding individual possession supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 1400 [cannabis 1 I guidelines should have supporting records readily available when club owner was not the primary caregiver to thousands of patients where he did not con- a) Operating a location for cultivation; sistently assume responsibility for their hous- I b)Transporting the group's medical ing, health, or safety]). ' marijuana; and j c) Operating a location for distribution to 2. Indicia of Unlawful Operation: When members of the collective or cooperative, investigating collectives or cooperatives, law I 8. Security: Collectives and cooperatives enforcement officers should be alert for signs of mass production or illegal sales, including I should provide adequate security to ensure (a) excessive amounts of marijuana, (b) exces- that patients are safe and that the surround- sive amounts of cash, (c)failure to follow local I ing homes or businesses are not negatively and state laws applicable to similar businesses, impacted by nuisance activity such as loitering such as maintenance of any required licenses or crime. Further, to maintain security, prevent and payment of any required taxes, including fraud, and deter robberies, collectives and sales taxes, (d) weapons, (e) illicit drugs, (f) I cooperatives should keep accurate records purchases from, or sales or distribution to, and follow accepted cash handling practices, non-members, or (g) distribution outside of including regular bank runs and cash drops, California. I and maintain a general ledger of cash trans- actions. C. Enforcement Guidelines: Depending Iupon the facts and circumstances, deviations from the guidelines outlined above, or other indicia that marijuana is not for medical use, may give rise to probable cause for arrest and I seizure. The following are additional guide- ! lines to help identify medical marijuana col- lectives and cooperatives that are operating Ioutside of state law. IFor more information,see www.AmericansForSafeAccess.orq or conMcr the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 510 251.1856. 1 305 1 1 APPENDIX D - MODEL ORDINANCE MODEL ORDINANCE FOR COLLECTIVES The following phrases,when used in this Chapter,shall be construed as defined 1 below: WHEREAS voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996 to ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use cannabis for medical purposes and to ''Medical Cannabis Dispensing Collective"or"MCDC". Qualified p atients,persons encourage elected officials to implement a plan for the safe and affordable distribu- with identification cards and designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and tion of medicine;and persons with identification cards who associate,as an incorporated or unincorporat- ed association,within_._. ,in order to collectively or cooperatively provide wed- WHEREAS the California State Legislature adopted Senate Rill 420,the Medical ical marijuana from a licensed or permitted location pursuant to this Chapter,for use ' Marijuana Program Act,in 2003 to help clarity and further implement Proposition exclusively by their registered members,in strict accordance with California Health 215 in part by authorizing qualified patients and primary caregivers to associate and Safety Code Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7,et seq. within the State of California in order to collectively or cooperatively cultivate cannabis for medical purposes;and "Director." The Director of Planning or other person authorized to issue a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to _code. WHEREAS the California Attorney General published"Guidelines far the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Purposes"in 2008,acknowledging Cities and counties may issue a business license or a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) that"a properly organized and operated collective of cooperative that dispenses to regulate MCDCs.If a jurisdiction opts for n business license model,the language medical marijuana through a storefront may be lawful under California law,"provid- in the following sections may be replaced with language authorizing the issuance of ed the facility substantially complies with state law;and a business license by amending the appropriate code Sections:Conditional Use Permit Required,Application Procedures,and Findings. WHEREAS crime statistics and the accounts of local officials surveyed by Americans for Safe Access indicate that crime is actually reduced by the presence of a Medical Conditional Use Permit Required Cannabis Dispensing Collective(MCDC);and complaints from citizens and surround- A Conditional Use Permit shall be required to establish or operate a Medical ing businesses are either negligible or are significantly reduced with the implementa- Cannabis Dispensing Collective(MCDC)in compliance with the requirements of this tion of sensible regulations;and Chapter when located in Commercial,Manufacturing,or Retail Zones. WHEREAS California courts have upheld the legality of MCDCs under state law, Application Procedure 1 including People v.Hochanadel,98 Cal.Rptr.3d 347,and People v.Urziceantr,132 CaLApp.4th 747; (1) In addition to ensuring compliance with the application procedures specified in Section the Director shall send copy of the application and related THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED That _._._..._ does hereby enact the following: materials to all other relevant City departments for their review and comment. Purposes and Intent (2)A disclaimer shall be put on the MCDC zoning application forms that shall (1)To implement the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Sections include the following: 11362.5 and 11362.7,et seq.,as described by the California Attorney General a. A warming that the MCDC operators and their employees may be subject in"Guidelines For The Security And Non-diversion Of Marijuana Grown For to prosecution under federal law;and Medical Use,"published August 2008,which states in Section IV(C)(1)that"a b. A disclaimer that the City will not accept any legal liability in the properly organized and operated collective or cooperative that dispenses connection with any approval and/or subsequent operation of an MCDC. medical marijuana through a storefront maybe lawful under California law,' provided the facility substantially complies with the guidelines. Findings I (2)To help ensure that seriously ill residents can obtain and use cannabis In addition to the findings required to establish compliance with the provisions of for medical purposes where that medical use has been deemed appropriate by Section___. ..,approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an MCDC shall require the a physician in accordance with California law following findings: (3)To help ensure that the qualified patients and their primary caregivers who (1)That the requested use at the proposed location will not adversely affect the obtain or cultivate cannabis solely for the qualified patient's medical economic welfare of the community in which it is located; treatment are not subject to arrest,criminal prosecution,or sanction. (2)That the requested use at the proposed location is outside a Residential zone; (4)To protect citizens from the adverse impacts of unregulated medical cannabis (3)That the exterior appearance of the structure will be consistent with the distribution,storage,and use practices. exterior appearance of structures already constructed or under construction (5)To establish a new section in the..-_._ code pertaining to the permitted within the immediate neighborhood,so as to prevent blight or deterioration, distribution of medical cannabis in consistent with state law. or substantial diminishment or impairment of property values within the neighborhood. Nothing in this ordinance purports to permit activities that are otherwise illegal under state or local law. Location Definitions The location at which an MCDC distributes medical cannabis must meet the follow, ing requirements: 1 The following phrases,when used in this Chapter,shall be construed as defined in California Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7: (1)The location must be in a Non-Residential Zone appropriate for Commercial, Manufacturing,or Retail uses,including health care use; "Person with an identification card;" "Identification card;" (2)The location must not be within a 600-foot radius of a school,as measured in "Primary caregiver;"and Section 11362.768 of the California Health and Safety Code; "Qualified patient." (3)The location must not be within 1,000 feet of another MCDC. For more information,see vwdw.AmericansForSafeAccess org or corrtact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 510-751-188b. I 306 I 111 Police Department Procedures and Training supplied to any person(s)other than the qualified patient(s)who designated (1) Within six months of the dale that this Chapter becomes effective,the training the primary caregiver; materials,handbooks,and printed procedures of the Police Department shall (12)No outdoor cultivation shall occur at an MCDC location unless it is:a)not be updated to reflect its provisions.These updated materials shall be made visible from anywhere outside of the MCDC property and b)secured from available to police officers in the regular course of their training and service. public access by means of a locked gate and any other security measures (2) Medical cannabis related activities shall be the lowest possible priority of the necessary to prevent unauthorized entry; Police Department. (13)No MCDC shall cause or permit the establishment or maintenance of the sale (3) Qualified patients,their primary caregivers,and MCDCs who come into or dispensing of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises or off- ' contact with law enforcement shall not be cited or arrested and dried site of the premises; cannabis or cannabis plants in their possession shall not be seized if they are (14)No dried medical cannabis shall be stored in structures without at least four in complianc.e with the provisions of this Chapter. walls and a roof,or stored in an unlocked vault or safe,or other unsecured 1 (4) Qualified patients,their primary caregivers,and MCDCs who come into contact with law enforcement and cannot establish or demonstrate their storage structure;nor shall any dried medical cannabis be stored in a safe or vault that is not bolted to the floor or structure of the facility;and status as a qualified patient,primary caregiver,or MCDC,but are otherwise in (15)Medical cannabis may be consumed on-site only as follows: compliance with the provisions of this Chapter,shall not be cited or arrested a. The smoking or vaporizing of medical cannabis shall be allowed provided and dried cannabis or cannabis plants in their possession shall not be seized if that appropriate seating,restrooms,drinking water,ventilation,air (1)based on the activity and circumstances,the officer determines that there purification system,and patient supervision are provided in a room or is no evidence of criminal activity;(2)the claim by a qualified patient,primary enclosed area separate from other MCDC service areas. caregiver,or MCDC is credible;and(3)proof of status as a qualified patient, primary caregiver,or MCDC can be provided to the Police Department within b. The maximum occupancy of the on site consumption area shall meet three(3)business days of the date of contact with law enforcement. applicable occupancy requirements. Operational Standards c. The MCDC shall use an activated charcoal filter,or other device sufficient to eliminate all odors associated with medical cannabis use from (1) Signs displayed on the exterior of the property shall conform to existing adjoining businesses and public walkways.The fan used to move air regulations; through the filter shall have the capacity sufficient to ventilate the square (2)The location shall be monitored at all times by a closed circuit video recording footage of the separate room or enclosed area in which medical cannabis 1 system for security purposes.The camera and recording system must be of use is permitted. adequate quality,color rendition,and resolution to allow the ready (16)MCDCs must verify that each member(1)is legally entitled to posses or identification of any individual committing a crime anywhere on the site; consume medical cannabis pursuant to state law;and(2)is a resident of the (3)The location shall have a centrally-monitored alarm system; State of California. (4) Interior building lighting,exterior building lighting and parking area lighting (17)All MCDC operators,employees,managers,members,or agents shall be must be in compliance with applicable regulations,and must be of sufficient qualified patients or the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients. brightness and color rendition so as to allow the ready identification of any MCDC operators,employees,managers,members,or agents shall not sell, individual committing a crime on site at a distance of no less than 40 feet(a barter,give away,or furnish medicine to anyone who is not a qualified patient distance that should allow a person reasonable reaction time upon recognition or primary caregiver,registered as a member of the MCDC,and entitled to of a viable threat); possess cannabis under state law. (5) Adequate overnight security shall be maintained so as to prevent (18)MCDCs shall maintain accurate patient records necessary to demonstrate 1 unauthorized entry; patient eligibility under the law for every MCDC member,including(1)a copy (6) Absolutely no cannabis product may be visible from the building exterior; of a valid driver's license or Department of Motor Vehicle identification card, (2)a patient registration form,and(3)a current valid letter of (7) Any beverage or edible produced,provided,or sold at the MCDC containing recommendation for the use of medical cannabis written by a state-licensed 1 cannabis shall be so identified,as part of the packaging,with a prominent and physician. All patient records shall be kept in a secure location,regarded as clearly legible warning advising that the product contains cannabis and that is strictly confidential,and shall not be provided to law enforcement without a it to be consumed only by qualified patients; valid subpoena or court order. (8) No persons under the age of 18 shall be allowed on site,unless the individual (1 g)Operating hours for MCDCs shall not exceed the hours between 8:00 AM and I is a qualified patient and accompanied by his or her parent or documented 10:00 PM daily. legal guardian; (20)MCDCs must have at least one security guard with a Guard Card issued by (9)At any given time,no MCDC may possess more cannabis or cannabis plants the California Department of Consumer Affairs on duty during operating I than would reasonably meet the needs of its registered patient members; hours. (10)A sign shall be posted in a conspicuous location inside the structure advising: Severability "The diversion of cannabis(marijuana)for non-medical purposes is a violation If any section,subsection,paragraph,sentence,or word of this Article is deemed to of state law and will result in membership expulsion.Loitering at the location I of a Medical Cannabis Dispensing Collective is also grounds for expulsion.The use of cannabis may impair a person's ability to drive a motor vehicle or be invalid,the invalidity of such provision shall not affect the validity of any other sections,sub-sections,paragraphs,sentences,or words of this Article,or the applica- operate heavy machinery.; tion thereof;and to that end,the sections,sub-sections,paragraphs,sentences,and words of this Article shall be deemed severable. (11)No MCDC may provide medical cannabis to any persons other than qualified patients and designated primary caregivers who are registered members of the MCDC and whose status to possess cannabis pursuant to state law has been verified.No medical cannabis provided to a primary caregiver may be For more information,see vwwv.AmericansforSafeAcress.org or contact the ASA office,it 1-888-929-4367 or 510-251-1856. 307 1 I THIRD TIME THE CHARM? State Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement 1 A White Paper prepared by Americans for Safe Access November 25, 2013 1 . 1 1 1 I •Vi AmericansFor SafeAccess Advancing Legal Medical Marijuana Therapeutics and Research Headquarters 1300 Clay Street,Suite 603,Oakland,California,94612 PHONE:510.251.1856 ' National Office 1805 Vernon Street NW,Washington,D.C.70'x)9 PHONE:202.857.4272 FAX:702.857.4273 WEB:www.AmericansFnrSefeAccess.orq TOLL FREE: 1.888.929.4367 1 1 The research and analysis in this report was conducted by Americans for Safe Access Foundation, a 501(c)(3)non-profit organization. 1 1 Published November 25, 20)3 1 1 I Americans for Safe Access Foundation works in tandem with Americans for Safe Access, the largest national member-based organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists, and concerned citizens promoting safe and legal access to marijuana for therapeutic use and research.ASA works in partnership with state, local and national legislators to overcome bar- riers and create policies that improve access to marijuana for patients and researchers.ASA has more than 50,000 active members with chapters and affiliates in all 50 states. Copyright 2013 Americans for Safe Access Foundation 1 All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form by any elec- tronic or mechanical means without permission in writing from Americans for Safe Access. Learn more about ASA at AmericansForSafeAccess.org. 1806 Vernon Street NW,Washington, D.C. 20009 phone: 202-857.4272 fax: 202.857.4273 i I I THIRD TIME THE CHARM? State Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement II. Executive Summary I 2. The Obama Administration and medical cannabis policy 3 I3. Overview of the latest DOJ policy 6 4. Flow the new DOI policy applies to state distribution programs I States with existing distribution programs 19 i. Arizona 19 ii. California 20 I iii. Colorado iv. District of Columbia 21 v. Maine 22 I vi. Montana 23 vii. New Jersey 23 viii. New Mexico 24 I ix. Rhode Island 24 x. Vermont. 25 xi. Washington. 25 IStates with recently created distribution programs xii. Connecticut 26 I xiii. Delaware 27 xiv. Illinois 28 xv. Massachusetts 28 I xvi. Nevada 29 xvii. New Hampshire 30 xviii. Oregon - 30 I States with pending legislative proposals xix. Arkansas 31 xx. Florida 32 I xxi. Idaho 32 xxii. Michigan 33 xxiii. Wisconsin 34 . I5. History shows some US Attorneys ignore guidelines 2009 Ogden memo 35 I 2011 Cole memo 37 6. Recommendations Federal I Temporary -CIS amendment 39 Intermediate—Truth in Trials, Marijuana Businesses Act 40 Permanent—FIR 689 41 I State Recommendations 42 6. Appendix 2009, 2011, 2013 DOI memos... 44 US Attorney threat letters 50 I 1 State L I/V.S on Medirrl Cannabis Di57ribution and Department of Justice Guidora on EnforcernE nt 1 The Supreme Court has concluded that a virtue of our federalist sys- 1 tern of government is that "a single courageous State may, if its citi- zens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."' 1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Currently 37% of the US population lives in a state where medical marijuana. (cannabis) is legal, and over one million Americans are legally using cannabis as a medicine. Yet the federal government has not only refused to acknowledge that cannabis has medical uses but also actively interfered in state attempts to protect patients and regulate distribution. Campaigning for President in 2008, Barack Oba.ma said he would not expend federal resources to interfere with those laws. Since his Administration began, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has three times issued memorandums on how the nation's US Attorneys should enforce federal laws in relation to state-regulated production and distribution of cannabis. The latest memo, issued on August 31, 2013, appears to come closest to fulfilling the President's promise, but after two previous memos offering seemingly contra- dictory advice, patients, advocates, municipalities, state representatives, and members of Congress have all been asking "what does this really mean for med- ical cannabis laws?" The following report attempts to answer that question by analyzing the various state and local medical cannabis laws in relation to the DOJ's eight enforcement.priorities. It also considers the effects on state laws of the federal enforcement actions that followed the two previous memos and offers recommendations for state and federal policy. Our analysis shows that state laws and regulations governing medical cannabis programs are already in compliance with the DOD's latest.guidelines. In a few states, regulations would be stronger had threats from federal prosecutors not interfered with state and local regulatory efforts. In all cases, state law reflects the same priorities as the latest guidelines. In the absence of metrics for federal 1 enforcement priorities, the DOJ should defer to each state's enforcement systems and determinations of compliance with that state's laws. 2.New Skate Jr'Co.v.Liebnmsrrr,285 U.S.262(1932). For more information, see vvvvwAmericansForSafeAc ess.nrq or contact the A5A office at 1-888-929-4367 or 207-857-4772 1 .Srate Laws on Medical Cannabis cisrnbution and Department of Justice C,uidane e on Enforcement The history of how US Attorneys, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and ' other federal agencies and officials have interfered with state medical cannabis programs demonstrates that a `guideline' is not enough to protect individuals par- ticipating in good faith in these programs. The previous memos did not curb fed- ' eral enforcement on state-authorized medical cannabis distribution, especially in states that have a history of prosecuting marijuana cases, such as California, Washington, and Michigan. In fast.. the Obama Administration has outspent all predecessors, with enforcement targeting medical cannabis programs and partici- pants that has cost taxpayers over $300 million and destroyed thousands of lives. ' (For details, see "What's the Cost: A Report on the Federal War on Patients," http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/WhatstheCost.pd1). The analysis that follows in this report should not be interpreted as an endorse- ment of the latest guidelines issued by the DOJ. Non-binding memos are not the solution. As patient advocates, we are hopeful that this latest policy will act as a stepping-stone for change in federal law and facilitate states enacting laws that regulate medical cannabis while serving the needs of their patient populations. Thousands of patients have been cut off from safe and legal access due to federal ' activity, and scores of individuals remain tied up in the federal legal system due to confusion over government policy and its conflicts with state laws. The recent. memo does nothing to redress that injustice, only action by Congress can. It is ' our hope that this report sheds light on how well regulated medical cannabis is in the states that have passed such laws and inspire federal representatives to replace harmful, outdated policies with ones that allow the laboratory of democ- racy to flourish. 1 1 I 1 For more information,see www.AmericansFcrrSafeAccess.org sir contact the ASA office at 1-888-9)9-4367 or 707-857-477) 2 State Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enlorcemeni 2.THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND MEDICAL CANNABIS During his presidential campaign in 2008, then-Senator Bara.ck Obama pledged ' to end federal interference with state medical cannabis laws, saying, "I think the basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the ' same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, i think that's entirely appro- priate. I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circum- vent state laws on this issue."' Soon after President Obama's inauguration in January 2009. a White House spokesman and his newly appointed Attorney General, Eric Holder each reiterat- ed that the new President would honor his campaign promise concerning medical cannabis. in October of 2009, the DOJ issued formal guidance reflecting the 1 Administration's stated position on medical cannabis in a memo for federal pros- ecutors written by the second-ranking member of the Department, Deputy Attorney General. (DA.G) David W. Ogden (see appendix). The 2009 Ogden Memo stated that it was not the Administration's policy to pros- ecute anyone "in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws pro- viding for the medical use of marijuana." That was widely viewed as a green light for the implementation of state medical cannabis laws, and several states 1 developed plans for centralized cultivation and distribution facilities that state and local officials could tightly control. In 2010, Arizona voters approved a med- ical cannabis initiative, and lawmakers in New Jersey and the District of Columbia passed bills creating licensed distribution programs. But Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents and federal prosecutors in several medical cannabis states chose to ignore the DOD's guidance. They con- tinued to raid and prosecute state-licensed medical cannabis businesses. This led to considerable confusion in communities attempting to regulate safe access, cre- ated additional hardship for state-qualified patients, and sent dozens of people to federal prison. Nonetheless, state legislatures continued to move forward, crafting laws and reg- I ulations to meet the needs of their citizens who were using medical cannabis on the advice of their doctors. Over the next few years, elected officials in more than a dozen states and localities introduced medical cannabis distribution laws, only to have US Attorneys threaten them with injunctions and criminal prosecution if they attempted to regulate the distribution. of medical cannabis (see appendix). 1 2."1-Ic favors long-term timber-payments solution."Mail fiihurrrr i Oregon I,March 23,2008. For more iniorrnatinn, see www.AmericansForSafnAc,cess.orq or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4357 or 207-857-4772 3 1 fate Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement I Some were even threatened with the arrest of state employees and the forfeiture ' of state buildings used to process any distribution applications or other licenses. Private property owners who leased space to licensed medical cannabis business- es were threatened with asset forfeiture and criminal prosecution if they did not ' evict their state-compliant. tenants. These proved effective tactics, causing gover- nors to suspend programs or veto legislation and landlords to terminate the leases for hundreds of businesses providing medicine to patients. The outcry over this departure from the Administration's stated policy prompted ' another DOJ memo in June 2011, this time written by the new Deputy Attorney General, James M. Cole (see appendix). The 2011 Cole Memo, "Guidance Regarding the Ogden Memo in Jurisdictions Seeking to Authorize Marijuana. for Medical Use," reversed the Odgen memo's declared cca.sefar-e with the states, stating that the various threat letters sent by US Attorneys were in step with 1 DOJ's position on enforcing marijuana laws, and that any business or large-scale cultivation and distribution operation related to medical cannabis was a target, regardless of state law. The result of the 2011 memo was more federal threats, ' raids, and people going to prison. This exacted a price in unnecessary human suffering, but a dollar cost was piling ' up, also. In a June 2013 report, Americans for Safe Access calculated that the Ohama Administration.had by then expended nearly $300 million on medical. cannabis enforcement, a cost to taxpayers of roughly Si 80,000 per day to stop the implementation of state laws. That's more than all previous Administrations combined, and brings to over half-a billion dollars the total cost since 1996 of the federal government's interference with patient access to medical cannabis. (For more information on the millions spent and lives ruined, see ASA's report, What's the Cost? at AmericansForSafeAccess.org/WhatsTheCost.pdf.) However, medical research on the remarkable safety and efficacy of medical. ' cannabis continued to accumulate, and support for safe access to this ancient herbal medicine continued to expand, both among the public and state la.wmak.- h ers. Recent polls by CBS News (Oct 201 1) and.ABC News/Washington Post (Jan 2010) found 77-81% of Americans favor allowing doctors to prescribe cannabis. Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New Hampshire each enact- ed new laws protecting medical cannabis patients and establishing regulated dis- tribution plans. And in 2012, voters in Washington and Colorado, where medical ' access programs have been on the books for more than a decade, made cannabis legally available to adults without a doctor's recommendation. For more information,see www.AmcrricansForSafeAccess.orq or contact the ASA ottice at 1-888-929-4367 or 707-857-4272 4 .State Laws on Medical Ctinnahis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement I On August 29, 2013. the DOJ responded to numerous requests for clarification from state officials with a new memo from Deputy Attorney General Cole (see appendix). That memo to US Attorneys, "Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement," says enforcement decisions can generally be left to state officials, while setting forth eight guidelines for federal prosecutors to use in determining if a state law, distribution program, or particular operation warrants federal inter- vention. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 For more information, see www.AmericansForSafeAccess.orq or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 202-857-4272 1 Stale Laws on Medical Cannabis Gictribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement 3. OVERVIEW OF THE LATEST DO! POLICY ' This latest memo from DAG Cole updates—and, in some respects, reverses----his 2011 memo. The guidance in the 2013 memo in many ways resembles the ' Obama Administration's original position on state cannabis laws, as outlined in statements from President. Obama and the White House, Attorney General holder. and the 2009 memo from DAG Ogden. The 2009 DOJ memo contained ' seven enforcement guidelines; the 2011 memo purported to clarify those guide- lines; the 2013 memo contains eight guidelines. The one consistent element in all ' three memos has been a clear statement that prosecutors should not target indi- vidual patients and their caregivers for personal cultivation. The 2013 memo's eight guidelines for identifying current federal enforcement priorities include the prevention of: ' I. distribution to minors, 2. revenue from marijuana sales going to criminals, gangs or cartels, ' 3. state-authorized conduct being a pretext to traffic other illegal drugs or other illegal activity, 4. diversion into states that do not have laws authorizing marijuana con- ' duct, 5. violence or the use of firearms in cultivation and distribution, ' 6. drugged driving and other harms to public health, 7. the growing of marijuana on public lands, R. marijuana use on federal property. The current nleino states that the DOJ wants state regulations and enforcement ' mechanisms that are strict both on paper and in practice; if the DOJ determines that a state's efforts are insufficient, the federal government may intervene with its own enforcement actions. The most notable change from the 2011 memo is the reversal of DOJ policy regarding the size of a state-approved cannabis provider's operation. Previously, ' the DOJ had instructed prosecutors to use the size of an operation as a measure for determining the degree of threat to federal priorities---- the larger it is, the ' more of a target—confounding state attempts to more closely monitor cultivation and distribution operations by centralizing them or issuing limited numbers of licenses. In contrast, the latest memo says "prosecutors should not consider the size or commercial nature of a marijuana operation alone" in deciding if it should For more information,see www.Amencansl-orSateAcress.org or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 202-857-4277 6 1 State Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of/u;tice Guidance on Enforcement be a target of federal enforcement but should rather weigh whether the operation is in compliance with a strong and effective regulatory system. ' On September 10, 2013,just days after the release of the new memo, the Senate's Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing that included testimony from Deputy Attorney General Cole. During the hearing, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-NH), who is a former US Attorney, read through the 2013 memo's eight priority guidelines for federal marijuana enforcement and made clear he was interpreting them in the same manner he had the 2009 Ogden Memo ---as providing protection from federal prosecution for state-authorized conduct related to medical cannabis. Deputy Attorney General Cole did not dispute that i rrterpretation. However,just as with the 2009 Ogden Memo, the 2013 Cole Memo is merely a guide and does not constrain the decisions of federal prosecutors to prosecute or seize the property of any patients or providers,regardless of how well the state law,program, or operation satisfies the DO.T enforcement priorities.Nor does the new memo provide a legal defense for individuals who violate federal marijuana law while being scrupulous- , ly compliant with state law, or even allow them to mention state law or medical neces- sity at trial. it provides no relief for any of the scores of individuals prosecuted and imprisoned by the federal government for participating in their state's medical cannabis program. The non-binding, advisory nature of the 2013 Cole Memo means that it car- ries no legal authority in federal court. I The new memo also explicitly limits its guidance to future conduct, so medical cannabis providers who were already in conformity with the new guidelines before they were issued are not protected from prosecution or other enforcement actions. A glaring instance of this is the continued civil forfeiture lawsuit target- ing the property in Oakland, California used by Harborside Health Center, one of the state's largest medical cannabis dispensaries. The forfeiture action began in July 2012 with an announcement from U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag that she was I targeting them because "[t]he larger the operation, the greater the likelihood that there will he abuse of the state's medical marijuana laws. This is exactly the rationale the 2013 Cole Memo notes should not be used in determining whether further investigation or prosecution is appropriate, yet US Attorney Haa.g's attempt to close Harborside continues undeterred. , 1 3.Statement of U.S.Attorney for Northern California Melinda Haag,as reported by the San Francisco Crronic/e,"CI,S. Attorney:Why I'm busting Harborside Health Center,"July 11,2012. for more information, see www.ArnericansForSateAccess.nrq or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 102-867-4277 7 1 I State Lows on Medical Cannabis DLtribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement Defining compliance with the new Dal guidelines IDuring the September 2013 Judiciary Committee hearing, Senators Whitehouse and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) urged .DAG Cole to provide metrics for states to follow. While the non-binding nature of the memo means the eight guidelines can be interpreted (or ignored) as each of the nation's 93 US Attorneys choose, public officials in medical cannabis states and the District of Columbia have said or implied that they have received federal assurances that their medical cannabis laws are do not offend federal enforcement priorities.` That fits the analysis of the guidelines and state laws set out in this report. The DOJ's concerns are not unique—the 21 medical cannabis programs in the IUS all reflect conscientious efforts to limit possible harms associated with med- ical cannabis production and distribution. A few would have more robust regula.- lions had federal prosecutors not threatened injunctions and criminal prosecutions of state officials and employees if the state adopted the very regulations the fed- eral government now expects. The following analysis identifies the types of conduct and regulations that com- ply with the current guidance of the DOJ. Personal Cultivation As mentioned above, the one method for obtaining medical cannabis all three DO.T memos have said the federal government is unconcerned with is personal cultivation by a qualified patient or that patient's caregiver. While the constraints of the law and the DOJ's duty to enforce it prevent any explicit advice to patients or states on what conduct can be considered permissible, each memo says consis- I tently that the concern of Congress and the DOJ is the sales and distribution of marijuana. Personal cultivation involves neither sales nor distribution. Each memo also invokes some version of the individual patient or caregiver providing medicine as an example of who should not be prosecuted. The 2009 Ogden memo stated that US Attorneys should not prosecute, for example, cancer I patients using marijuana for treatment "or those caregivers in clear and unam- biguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with Imarijuana." The 2011 Cole memo echoed the previous guidance. 4.Council of the District of Columbia,Committee on I lealth,Public Oversight.Roundtable,October 21,2013,testimony of Feseha Woldu,Senior Deputy Director of the D.C.1 lealtb Regulation and Licensing Administration,and statement of C.! ci m em ber Yvette Al ex an der. Letter front Delaware Governor Jack Markcll to Slate Senator Margaret.Rose l lenry and State Representative Helene M. Keeley announcing the relaunch of the state's medical cannabis program under SB 17(2011),August 15,2013,available at http;/hvww.scribd.eorn/doe/16t(521934/Governor-Markell-letter-on-restarting-Delaware-s-medical-marijuana-program,(last accessed Nov.21,2013). for more information,see vwvw.AmericansForSafeAccess.org or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 207-857-4772 8 I I State Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice c7uidance on Enforcement 1 With the 2013 Cole memo, the DOJ has conceded that sales and distribution is now a proven, regulated model. The 2013 memo does not draw the same contrast with individual medical use and caregiver providers, but the memo notes the DOJ "has not historically devoted resources to prosecuting individuals whose conduct is limited to possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use on pri- 1 vate property." None of the eight enforcement priorities are implicated by the personal cultivation of medical cannabis by either an individual patient or a patient's caregiver, indicating it as a way of providing medicine that states can allow with ample confidence and limited regulation. The eight guidelines of the 2013 Cole Memo 1. Preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors f The 2013 Cole Memo addresses the issue of minors in a bit more detail than the other enforcement priorities. The DOJ specifically calls for enforcement when "an individual or entity sells or transfers marijuana to a minor." All state medical. cannabis laws include language about minors. Most states allow for the medical use by minors but include additional restrictions such as recommendations from multiple physicians, including pediatricians, the informed consent of the parents or legal guardians, and the parent or guardian's direct control of the minor ' patient's medical cannabis use. That degree of regulation, coupled with DOJ direction to U.S. Attorneys not to prosecute conduct that is permitted by state law, suggests medical cannabis use by minors under the supervision of their doc- tors and parents or legal guardians satisfies the guideline. The DOJ has coupled the prevention of sales to minors with a "buffer zone," pro- ' hibiting the distribution of medical cannabis within 1,000 feet of a school. llist.orically, US Attorneys have used that 1,000-foot rule as a pretext for interfer- 1 ing with local zoning decisions by threatening the landlords of dispensaries and other medical cannabis business with the forfeiture of their property. however, such interference in local zoning would appear to be a similar violation of the Constitution's Tenth Amendment to the one found in the 1995 US Supreme Court ruling in United States v Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, which held that a federal law pro- ' hibiting the possession of a firearm within a school zone violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. While the particulars of the Lopez decision do not directly apply, it nonetheless represented a federal entity unconstitutionally dic- tating local land use policy that is the purview of states. Land use decisions are local ones and should be protected from federal interference. 1 For more information, see www.ArnericansForSafeAccess.org or contact the ASA office at 1-888-979-4367 or 202-857-4272 9 State L.aws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement I State Laws Addressing 2013 Cole Memo Priorities 1. Preventing distribution to minors • AZ Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36.2804.03(B). CA Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.7(e). CO Colo. Const. Art XVIII, § 14 cl. 6. CT Conn. Gen. Stat § 21a-408(10). DC D.C. Code § 7-1671.02(e). DE Del. Code Ann. Tit 16 § 4909A(b). IL Public Act 098-0122 § 30(a)(3)(G) (III., Eff.Jan 1 2014). ME Me. Rev. Stat.Tit. 22, § 2425(2). ' MA • 105 Code Mass. Rules 725.010(J). MI Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26426(b) (2008) ' MT Mont. Code Ann. § 50-46-307. • NV • Nev. Rev. Stat. § 453A.210(3). NH • 2013 N.H. Laws 126-W:4(V). • NJ. . N.J. Stat. § 24:61-5. NM N.M. Stat. § 26-2B-4(C). • OR Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.309(3). RI. R.I. Gen. Laws § 21-28.6-6(b). VT Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 18, § 4473(b)(1). WA • Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.010(1)(a). As an example, the District of Columbia's medical cannabis law, the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Amendment of 2010, clearly defines the conditions that must he met for minors to receive medical cannabis therapy. The law authorizes youth to "possess and administer medical marijuana" if their par- ent or legal guardian signs and adheres to a four-point agreement.. First, the par- ent or legal guardian must affirm that they understand the qualifying condition their child has. Second, they must declare they have been made aware of the "potential benefits and potential adverse effects of medical marijuana" for minors. Third, they must affirmatively agree to the use of medical cannabis for their minor's condition. Last, they must agree to become, or designate another adult to serve as, the minor patient's caregiver who "controls the acquisition, pos- session, dosage, and frequency of use," of medical cannabis. For more information, see www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org or _orrtact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 707.857-4272 10 State Laws on Medical cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcernenr 1 The D.C. law contains the two common components of regulated medical cannabis distribution to minors—parental consent and parental control over the medicine. The first, parental consent, is part of any medical treatment for a child. But it is the second component that is most important in satisfying the concerns outlined in the 2013 Cole Memo. Ry not allowing minor patients to purchase or I possess medical cannabis independently of their parent or legal guardian, the D.C. law achieves the goal of preventing the "distribution of marijuana to minors." Minors only possess or administer medical cannabis within the limited scope of their parent or legal guardian's written consent and direct supervision. A District government official has reported being told by a DOJ representative that D.C.'s law containing a provision allowing a caregiver to acquire and trans- fer medical cannabis to a minor does not warrant federal interference. (footnote to DC Council hearing):Additionally, by informing the District government that their law does not offend current enforcement priorities, DOJ has has acknowl- edged that D.C.'s 300-foot buffer between medical cannabis dispensaries and schools and youth facilities does not necessitate federal interference, even though federal law mandates special penalties for marijuana distribution within 1,000 feet of schools. 2. Preventing revenue from the sales of marijuana from going to criminal 1 enterprise,gangs, and cartels; 3. Preventing state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or I pretext for the trafficking of other illicit drugs or other illegal activity. These two guidelines are met whenever a state passes and implements a system for regulating and licensing distribution of medical cannabis. The application process for becoming a distributor or producer of medical cannabis typically involves a criminal background check and a highly competitive process in which applicants vie for a limited number of licenses. Those safeguards protect against the involvement of criminals. Likewise, sales are regulated by the state, as with I all other products, and businesses are typically required to keep strict tabs on inventory. I Once a medical cannabis business is open to customers, they are subject to inspection by state or local authorities or both, preventing the sale of other drugs. Since the sale of other drugs in the federal Controlled Substances Act is also ille- gal under state law, the state's themselves have a great interest in making sure no sales of those substances take place, whether at a dispensary or anywhere else. 1 5. Oct.21,2013 D.C.Council hearing. For more information,see www.AmericansForSateAccess.org or contact We ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 202-857-4272 11 1 State Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement 1 State Laws Addressing 2013 Cole Memo Priorities 2. Preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. 3. Preventing state-authorized activity from being used as a cover or pretext for trafficking other illegal drugs or other illegal activity. ' AZ Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2806. CA Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.83. • CO Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-43.3-101 et. seq. ' CT C onn. Agencies Regs. § Sec. 21a-408-24 DC D.C. Code § 7-1671.06. DE Del. Code Ann. Tit 16 § §4919A. IL Public Act 098-0122 § 15(c) (III., eff. Jan. 1, 2014). ME Me. Rev. Stat. Tit. 22, § 2428. MA 105 Code Mass. Rules 725.105(I). ' MI Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 333.26423(h) and § 333.26424(k). MT Mont. Code Ann. § 50-46-308. NV Nev. Rev. Stat. § 453A.356. NH 2013 N.H. Laws 126-W:7. NJ N.J. Stat. § 24:6:7(d)(1). ' NM N.M. Stat. § 26-2B-3(D). OR 2013 Or. Laws Chap. 726. RI R.I. Gen. Laws § 21-28.6-12. VT Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 18, § 4474f, WA Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.055(3). Given the level of scrutiny given to medical cannabis businesses, it would be dif- ficult for criminals to gain entry to such a market. Moving medical cannabis sales from an underground market to a regulated one also removes much of the ' incentive for criminal involvement, just as the repeal of alcohol prohibition in 1933 took alcohol sales revenue out of the hands of gangsters and transferred it to responsible business operators. ' 4. Preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some fbrm to other states ' Keeping medical cannabis from being diverted from its state of origin to else- For For more information,see Nnwd.AmericansForSafeAccess orq or contact the ASA office at 1-888-979-43E57 or 202-857-4272 12 I State Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement 1 where is addressed by each state medical cannabis law in some form. Every state has a possession limit or guideline on how much medicine a patient may have at any given time. Each defines medical use and limits access to obtaining and pos- sessing for the patient's use only. Legal protections from state criminal penalties only apply if the conduct is solely for the patient's medical use within the state. 1 As a result, patients, caregivers, and providers in all states are subject to criminal marijuana penalties for conduct that diverts marijuana either to non-qualified individuals or to anyone outside the state. Patients who transport their personal medicine from their home state to a state State Laws Addressing 2013 Cole Memo Priorities 1 4. Preventing diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal understate law in some form to other states AZ Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2806.02(A). CA Regulated at the City and County level CO Colo. Const, Art XVIII, Section 14, cl. 3. CT Conn. Gen. Stat § 21a-408h(G). DC D.C. Code § 7-1671.03. DE Del. Code Ann. Tit 16 § §4919A(e). IL Public Act 098-0122 § 130(h) (III., eff.Jan. 1, 2014). 1 ME Me. Rev. Stat, Tit. 22, § 2426(1)(E). MA 105 Code Mass. Rules 725.004 "Qualifying Patient." 1 Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 333.26424(a), 333.26423(d), and MI, 333.26426(a)(6). MT Mont. Code Ann. § 50-46-330. NV: Nev. Rev. Stat. § 453A.210(2)(c). NH 2013 N.H. Laws 126-W:1(XIII). N1 N.J. Stat. § 24:61:3 "Qualifying patient." NM N.M. Stat. § 26-2B-3(G). 1 OR Dr. Rev. Stat. § 475.300(4). RI R.I. Gen. Laws § 21-28.6-6(f)(2). 1 VT Vt. Stat. Ann.Tit. 18, §4474f(a)(2). WA Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.200(2)(f) Diversion of cannabis intended I for medical use to nonmedical uses For more information, see www.AmericansFnr.SaieArress org or contact the ASA office al 1-888-929-4367 or 202-857-4272 13 i State Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement 1 with reciprocity for medical cannabis patients would not be "diverting" their medicine under the medical use provision of each state, as it remains in the quali- fied patient's possession for personal use. Practically speaking, even if these patients cross into states that do not extend the same legal protections, it is still ' not diversion so long as the medical cannabis does not change hands. Patients are taking an obvious legal risk by transporting medicine, and therefore have a sub- , stantial incentive not to use their medicine where they are not legally authorized to do so. ' 5. Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribu- tion of marijuana Acts of violence and the use of firearms in the conduct of any business are illegal • State Laws Addressing 2013 Cole Memo Priorities ' 5. Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and • distribution of marijuana ' • AZ Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2801(7). CA. Regulated at the City and County level CO 1 Colo, Code Regs. § 212-1.305. CT Conn. Agencies Regs. § 21a-408-24(a). ' DC D.C. Code § 22-4501 et seq. DE Del. Code Ann.Tit 16 § §4915A. ' IL Public Act 098-0122 § 10(1) (III, eff. Jan. 1, 2014). ME• Me, Rev. Stat. Tit. 22, § 2428(5). MA 105 Code Mass. Rules 725.110. ' MI Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26423(h). • MT Mont. Code Ann. § 6-18-202. ' NV • Nev. Rev, Stat. § 453A.300(1)(c). NH 2013 N.H. Laws 126-W:7(IV)(13)(c). Ni N.J. Stat. § 24:61:7(d)(1). NM N.M. Stat. § 26-2B-7(A)(6). ' • OR Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.304(6). RI • R.I. Gen. Laws § 21-28.6-12(c)(1)(vi). VT Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 18, § 4474e(j)(2). ' WA• Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.200 (2)(g). For more information,see www.AmericansiorSateAccc!s;.org or contact the ASA office at 1-888.929.4:367 or 202.857-272 14 State l,sw on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement under all state laws. Every state government has an enforcement. priority to pre- vent violence and the use of firearms, in-espective of medical cannabis laws. In addition, criminal background checks further help prevent violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of medical cannabis. Many states do not allow anyone with a criminal conviction for felony violence to obtain a med.- ical cannabis business license. Many states also run similar checks on employees who work at such businesses. Additionally, most states require that cultivation take place in locations with .fight security. But even in states such as California that do not require extraordinary 1 security measures by law, studies by law enforcement, researchers and journalists have shown that the areas around dispensaries are safer than other parts of the community, due to the security steps taken by operators and employees in the normal course of business." The primary threat of violence and firearms is one created by the DOJ, which has systematically forced medical cannabis businesses into running on an all-cash basis by preventing them from using financial services or secure transport. The 1 federal government has threatened banking institutions and other financial serv- ice companies with penalties if they maintain accounts for those who sell mari- juana, including state-approved medical cannabis providers. The 2011 Cole Memo concludes by noting "[t]hose who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity [i.e. cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana] may 1 also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal finan- cial laws." These threats have prevented licensed cannabis businesses from accepting credit cards or depositing normal cash receipts. The DOJ has made similar threats to armored car and armed guard agencies to prevent them from transporting cash securely or protecting business facilities. I This policy creates a perverse incentive for operators to possess firearms for their own protection and that of their employees and patrons. Until the federal govern- 1 ment makes it clear to banking institutions and security firms that they can law- fully work with medical cannabis providers, the current policy will continue to engender the very situation that the guideline seeks to prevent. DAG Cole faced questioning from the Senate Judiciary Committee on this but could only say that the DO] acknowledges the problem and is working on a solution. , 6. Freisthler B,Kepple NJ,Sims R,Martin SE.Iivaluating medical marijuana dispensary policies:spatial methods for the study of environmentally--based interventions.American Journal of Community Psychology.2013,51;1-2:278-258. "t..APr)chief:Pot clinics not plagued by crime,"Los Angeles Daily News,Jan. 15,2010. "Checking Bonnie's Facts,"San Diego City Beat,Oct.27,20(9. "Rand study finds less crime near medical marijuana dispensaries,"Los Angeles Times,Sep.21,2011. For more ininrmation,see www AmericansForSafeAccess org or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 202-857-4272 15 1 51,11 e Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement State Laws Addressing 2013 Cale Memo Priorities 6. Preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other.adverse public • health consequences associated with marijuana use ' AZ Ariz. Admin. Cod R9-17-317. CA Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.79. ' CO 5 Colo. Code Regs. § 1006-2. CT Conn. Gen. Stat § 21a-408a(b)(2). ' DC D.C. Code § 7-1671.03(d)(2), DE Del. Code Ann. Tit 16 § § 4904A. IL Public Act 098-0122 § 30(a)(5) (III., eff. Jan. 1, 2014). ME Me. Rev. Stat. Tit. 22, § 2426(1)(D). MA 105 Code Mass. Rules 725.650(B)(1). ' MI Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26427(b)(4). MT Mont. Code Ann. § 50-46-320. ' NV Nev. Rev. Stat. § 453A.300(1)(a). NM 2013 N.H. Laws 126-W:3(II)(a)(1). ' NJ N.J. Stat. § 24:61:8. NM N.M. Stat. § 26-2B-5(2). 1 OR Or. Rev. Stat. §475.316(1)(a). RI R.I. Gen. Laws § § 21-28.6-7(a)(3). VT Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 18, § 4474c(a)(1)(A). WA Wash. Rev. Code § 69.51A.060(8). 6.Preventing impaired driving and the exacerbation.of'oilier adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use. ' Under no medical cannabis state law is it legal for patients to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of medical cannabis or any other drug that can ' create impairment. 'In fact, in some medical cannabis states, patients may be sub- ject to criminal penalties merely for having the presence of trace amounts of cannabis metabolites in their system. At present there is no definitive way to sor- trelate levels of cannabis in one's blood, saliva, hair, or urine with real-time impairment. Statistically, states with medical cannabis laws have experienced a ' 4.Anderson OM,Rees 1)1.Medical Marijuana Laws.Ttaftic Fatalities,and Alcohol Consumption.2011.Available at http://ftp.iza.org/dph112.pdf(last accessed November 20,2013). Anderson DM,Hansen B..Rees 171.Medical Marijuana.Laws,Traffic Fatalilics,and.Alcohol Consumption.Journal of Ilaw and Economics.2013,56,2:333-369, For more intormation,see wwv,.AmericanstorSateAccess.orq or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 252-857-4272 16 1 State Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Departrneni of justice Guidance on Enforcement decrease in traffic fatalities after such laws were adopted. Studies in both 2011 and 2013 demonstrated that vehicular fatalities in medical cannabis states dropped 9%-13%, even when other factors are controlled.' Any other risk to public health is mitigated by the requirements present in all 1 state laws that patients be examined and diagnosed by a licensed medical profes- sional before receiving a recommendation that would allow them to participate in a medical cannabis program. As with all medications, physicians and other pre- scribing medical professionals have a duty to explain to patients both the poten- tial benefits and adverse effects of medical cannabis therapy. Standards of 1 medical practice require them to only prescribe or recommend courses of treat- ment when they think the benefits outweigh the potential adverse effects. State.Laws..Addressing 2013 Cole Memo Priorities • 7. Preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant• public safety and environmental dangers posed by'marijuana production on AZ Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2806(E). 1 CA Regulated at the City and County level CO 1 Colo. Code Regs. § 212-1.205. 1 CT Conn. Agencies Regs. § 21a-408-20(58). • DC D.C. Code § 7-1671.06(h). DE Del. Code Ann. Tit 16 § 4902A(f). IL Public Act 098-0122 § 105(d) (Ill., eff.Jan. 1, 2014). ME Me. Rev. Stat.Tit. 22, § 2428 (6)(I), MA 105 Code Mass. Rules 725.105(8)(1)(c). MI Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.26423(d). • MT Mont. Code Ann. § 50-46-308. NV Nev, Rev. Stat. § 453A.352. ' NH 2013 N.H. Laws 126-W:8(XV)(c). NJ N.J. Admin. Code 8:64-10.4. 1 • NM N.M. Stat. § 26-2B-7(A)(6). OR' Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.304, , RI R.I. Gen. Laws § 21-28.6-12(c)(1)(iv). VT Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 18, § 4474e(d)(1). ' WA Line-item vetoed out of of 2011 Wash. Sess. Laws 1345. f-or more information, see www.AmericansForSafeAccess.nrg or contact the ASA office at 1-888-979-4367 or 202-857-4272 17 ' 1 State Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and L epan'mont of Justice Guidance on Enforcement ' Preventing the growing marijuana on public land and the attendant public 7. Yrcic.rltcn�, t1�c �,iowmr of marijuana public 1 safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands Cultivating any crop for private consumption on public land without a permit is ' against the law, and all businesses and agricultural operations are subject to all existing cnviromnental laws at both the state and federal level. No medical cannabis law has an exception for cultivation on public land or an exemption. ' from environmental law. In states that authorize the cultivation of medical cannabis for retail sale to patients, locations where medical cannabis may be cul- 1 tivated are clearly defined and controlled by local land use rules. The cultivation of marijuana on public land is a direct consequence of prohibition. Legal jeop- ardy creates incentives to grow on public land—its ownership cannot be traced to the grower, and the property cannot be seized. Nonetheless, medical cannabis is typically grown under close supervision in controlled environments, not on pub- lic lands. State medical cannabis laws help further prevent the cultivation of mar- ijuana on public land by providing legal protections for individuals and their private property. ' 8. Preventing marihuana possession or use on federal property l State Laws Addressing 2013 Cole Memo Priorities ' • 8. Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property. ' All • State laws cannot authorize the use of marijuana on federal property. l State law has no authority over conduct engaged in on federal property. In gener- al, the legal provisions that work to prevent diversion to non-qualified .individuals or transport to other states also help prevent possession and use on federal prop- erty. Rut enforcement of federal law on federal property is strictly the responsi- bility of the federal government; states have no jurisdiction. For more information,see www.AisrericantForSateAccess org or contact the ASA office at 1.888-929-1367 or 202-857-4772 18 l I .State laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Deparlmen't of Justice Guidance on Enforcement I 4. HOW THE NEW DO! POLICY APPLIES TO STATES States with Existing Distribution Systems 1 - Preventing Preventing Preventing Preventing Preventing Preventing Preventing Preventing distribution to revenue from diversion of trafficking violence and drugged growing of marijuana I minors going to marijuana to other illegal the use of driving marijuana on possession or criminal other states drugs or other firearms public lands use on federal enterprises illegal activity property I Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ariz. Rev,Stat. State law Aria.Rev.Stat. Ariz.Rev.Stat. Aria.Rev.Stat. Ariz.Admin. Ariz.Rev.Stat. AZ §36 §36-2806. §36- cannot §36-2806. §36.2801(7). Cod R9.17-317. §36-7806(E). 2804.03(8). 2806,02(A) authorize I Cal. Health& Cal.Health& Regulated at Cal.Health& Regulated at Cal. Health& Regulated at State law CA Safety Code§ Safety Code§ the City and Safety Code§ the City and Safety Code§ the City and cannot 11362.7(e). 11362.83. County level 11362.83. County level 11362.79. County level authorize U Colo.Rev.Stat. Colo.Const.Art Colo.Rev,Stat. 1 Colo.Code 1 Colo.Code State law Colo.Const.Art 5 Colo.Code CO §12-43.3-101 XVIII,Section §12 43.3-101 Regs.§212- Regs.§212- cannot I XVIII,§14 cl.6. Regs.§1006-2, et.seq. 14,cl.3. et.seq. 1.305. 1.205. authorize Conn.Agencies Conn.Agencies Conn.Agencies Conn.Gen.Stat Conn.Agencies State law Conn.Gen.Stat Conn.Gen.Stat CT §21a-408(10). Regs.§ Sec. §21a-408h(G). Regs.§ Sec. Rags.§ 21.a- §21a- Regs.§ 21a- cannot I 21a-408-24 21a-408-24 408-24(a). 408a(b)(2). 408-20(58). authorize State-level law D.C.Code§7•- D.C.Code§7- D.C.Code§7- D.C.Code§7- D.C.Code§22- D.C.Code§7- D.C.Code§7- I DC 1671.02(e). 1671.06. 1671,03, 1671.06. 4501 at seq. 1671.03(d)(2). 1671.06(h), autho ze -r Me.Rev.Stat. Me.Rev.Stat. Me.Rev.Stat. Me.Rev.Stat. Me.Rev.Stat. State law Me.Rev.Stat. Me.Rev.Stat. ME Tit.22,§ Tit.22,§ Tit.22,§ Tit.22,§ Tit.22,§2428 cannot I247.5(2). Tit.22,§2428. 2426(1)(E), Tit.22,§2428. 2428(5). 2426(1)(D). (6)(1). authorize Mont.Code Mont.Code Mont.Code Mont.Code Mont.Code Mont.Code Merit.Code State law MT Ann,§ 50-46- Ann.§ 50-46- Ann.§ 50-46- Ann.§ 50-46- Ann.§ 6-18- Ann.§ 50-46- Ann.§ 50.46. cannot 307. 308. 330. 308. 202. 320. 308. authorize I N.1.Stat.§ N.J.Admin. State law N.J.Stat.§ N.J.Stat.§ 24:61:3 N.J.Stat.§ N.J.Stat.§ N.J.Stat.§ NJ Code 8:64- cannot I 24:61-5. 24:6:7(d)(1). "C�ualifying 24:6:7(d)(1). 24:61:7(d)(1). 24:61:8. 10.4. authorize patient." N.M.Stat.§26- N.M.Stat.§26- N.M.Stat.§26- N.M.Stat.§26- N.M.Stat.§26- N.M.Stat.§26- N.M.Stat.§26- State law NM 28-4(C). 2B-3(D). 2B 3(G). 2B-3(D), 28-7(A)(6). 28-5(2). 29-7(A((6). cannot I authorize R.I.Gen.Laws R.I.Gen.Laws R.I.Gen.Laws R.I.Gen.Laws State law R.I.Gen.Laws R.I.Gen.Laws R.I.Gen.Laws RI §21-28.6-6(b). §21-28.6-1.2. §21-28.6- §21-28.6-12. §21-28.6- §§21-28.6- §21-28.6- cannot I 6(f)(7). 12(c)(1)(vi). 7(a)(3). 12(c)(1)(iv). authorize Vt.Stat.Ann. Stat.Ann.Tit. Stat.Ann.Tit, Stat.Ann.Tit. Stat.Ann.Tit. State law Vt.Stat.Ann. Stat.Ann.Tit. \T I Tit.18,§ Tit. 18,§4474f. 18,§ 18,§4474f. 18,§ 18,§ 18,§ cannot 4473(b)(1). 4474f(a)(2). 4474e(j)(2). 4474c(a)(1)(A). 4474e(d)(1). authorize Wash.Rev, Wash.Rev. Wash.Rev. Line item Wash.Rev. Wash,Rev, Wash,Rev. State law I Code§ Code§ Code§ vetoed 2011. WA Code§ Code§ Code§ cannot 69.51A.010(1) Wash.Secs. 69.51A.055(3). 69.51A.200(2) 69.51A.055(3). 64.51A.20U 69.51.A.060(8). authorize (a). (f) (2)(g). Laws 1345. For more information,see www.AmencansForSateAccess.org or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 207-857-4272 I 19 I 1 State Lows on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement 1 ARIZONA 1 The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (Proposition 203, 2010) prevents the distri- bution of marijuana to minors by only allowing those under the age of 18 to 1 become patients if their parent or legal guardian grants informed written consent and agrees to "control the acquisition of the marijuana, the dosage and the fre- quency of the medical use of marijuana by the qualifying patient." The law's reg- istration requirements work to ensure that criminal enterprise can neither profit from medical cannabis sales nor use them as a pretext for other illegal activity. ' Diversion is prevented by only allowing patients to obtain a 14-day supply of medical cannabis every two weeks, and by limiting legal protections to conduct. related to medical use. Individuals with convictions for violent felonies are not 1 allowed to work at medical cannabis dispensaries or cultivation sites. In addition to it being illegal to drive a car in Arizona while under the influence of medical 1 cannabis, labeling requirements also help prevent the possibility of patients inad- vertently taking a larger dose than needed. Medical cannabis cannot be grown on public land or anywhere else that is not an enclosed, locked facility. The program ' does not authorize patients or providers to bring medicine onto federal property. Arizona allows qualified patients and caregivers to cultivate a limited number of ' plants if the patient lives more than 2.5 miles from a licensed dispensary. 1 CALIFORNIA California's Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215, 1996) authorizes cities and counties in the state to create local rules pertaining to the production and distri- bution of medical cannabis. Over 50 cities and counties in California have passed such ordinances since the legislature enacted the Medical Ma.rijuan.a Program Act. 1 (SB 420, 2003). Cities and counties that decline to pass local ordinances are sub- ject to the default rules in the California Health and Safety Code. While ' California's decentralized medical cannabis regulation system under SB 420 results in varied local regulations, the 2009 Ogden Memo repeatedly specified "compliance with state OR LOCAL LAW" (emphasis added) as the standard, ' including within each of the memo's seven guidelines. The medical cannabis program created in California under Prop. 215 and SB 420 1 also satisfies the present-day 2013 Cole Memo guidelines. The law requires par- ents to be the caregivers of minor patients. Diverting medical cannabis for non- ' medical purposes is illegal. To pr-event criminal enterprise from taking part in the market, SB 420 calls for local governments to create and enforce local regula- For more information,see www.AmericansForSa(eAccess.orq or contact the ASA office at. 1-888-929-4367 or 702-857-4272 20 1 1 State Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement lions. It is illegal for medical cannabis patients to consume their medicine in a moving motor vehicle. The remaining guidelines are covered by many of the over four-dozen local medical cannabis ordinances. California allows qualified patients and caregivers to cultivate a limited number of plants for personal use. COLORADO Colorado's Medical Use of Marijuana law (Amendment 20, 2000) and subse- quent action by the state legislature (HB 1284 & SB 109, 2010) established a Marijuana Enforcement Division (MED) that vigorously monitors and enforces ' adherence to the state's laws and rules for the distribution of medical cannabis to patients with a valid physician's recommendation. The law allows minors access for medical use only if two physicians recommend the therapy and a parent or legal guardian agrees in writing to the treatment. The law authorizes the MED to create strict monitoring regulations to ensure revenue does not go to criminal enterprise and that distribution may not be used as a pretext for other illicit activ- ity. Diversion is a violation of law and is prevented by only allowing registered Colorado patients to enter dispensaries or purchase medicine. Violence preven- tion is addressed in the regulations by allowing the MED to temporarily suspend the license of any operator-whose business creates a public safety risk. The pro- i gram does not authorize patients to use a motor vehicle while under the influence of medical cannabis. The monitoring regulation enforced by the MED prevents medical cannabis from being grown on public lands. The program does not authorize patients or providers to bring medicine onto federal property. Colorado allows qualified patients and caregivers to cultivate a limited number of plants 1 for personal use. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA The District of Columbia's Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment. Amendment Act of 2010 (B18-622, implementing Initiative 59, 1998) prevents distribution of marijuana to minors by requiring parents or legal guardians to grant written consent and agree to be the minor patient's caregiver in charge of acquisition and administration of the medicine. Section 7 of the D.C. medical cannabis statute, along with the 114 pages of regulations for the medical cannabis program, work to ensure that criminal enterprise cannot use the program to earn revenue from medical cannabis sales or use the program as a pretext for other illicit activity. The District program prevents diversion. by only extending legal For more intormation, seE www.ArnericansForSafeAccess.orq or contact Ile ASA ofric.m at 1-888-979-4367 or 707-857-4777 21 state Law,on Medical C'iinnabis Distribution and Dep+rrtrnent of Justice Guidance on Enforcement protection to patients and caregivers whose conduct is in accordance with the strict provisions of the act. The cultivation of medical cannabis in the District is limited to cultivation centers, and medical cannabis cannot be grown on public lands. The use of firearms by D.C. medical cannabis businesses is prevented by ' the strict gun laws of the District. D.C. law forbids both the operation of motor vehicles under the influence and the undertaking of any professional task that ' would constitute negligence or professional misconduct. The program does not authorize patients or providers to bring medicine onto federal property. MAINE ' The .Maine Medical Marijuana Initiative (Ballot Question 2, 1999) prevents dis- tribution to minors by requiring parents or the legal guardian of a youth patient to give written consent to the treatment Option and to be in control of"the acquisi- Lion of the marijuana and the dosage and the frequency of the medical use of marijuana by the qualifying patient." Maine prevents criminal enterprise from entering the market or using medical cannabis as pretext for other illegal activity ' via the licensure system set forth in 22 MRSA §2428. The law prevents diversion to other states by only granting legal protection. to those engaging in conduct ' related to medical use. Violence and the use of firearms are curbed by back- ground check requirements, as well as the inspection provisions of the law. It is ' illegal for patients to operate motor vehicles while under the influence of medical cannabis.All cultivation of medical cannabis must take place in an enclosed, locked facility. The program does not authorize patients or providers to bring ' medicine onto federal property. Maine allows qualified patients and caregivers to cultivate a limited number of plants for personal use. MONTANA ' The Montana Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA, 2004), enacted by 62% of voters, enabled qualified patients to received medical cannabis from their caregiver in • exchange for compensation. The MMMA also contained provisions that meet the eight federal enforcement guidelines set forth in the 2013 Cole Memo. That pro- gram was largely dismantled by the passage of SB 423, following 26 simultane- ous DEA raids in 13 Montana cities on March 16, 2011. In October 2012, a state judge intervened on the basis of a state constitutional challenge brought by Montana marijuana businesses and issued an injunction preventing enforcement ' of provisions that would have eliminated distribution. Montana's medical for more information,See www.AmericansForSafeAcceSS.orq or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929.4367 or 202-857-4772 22 I State Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement I cannabis program currently operates under that injunction preventing the state lawmakers' changes to the voter initiative. I Montana lawmakers could resolve the court injunction by introducing a bill that would meet the new federal guidelines and restore the intent of the law passed overwhelmingly by voters. Currently. Montana allows qualified patients and caregivers to cultivate a limited number of plants for personal use. NEW JERSEY The New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act ($13 119. 2010) pre- vents distribution of marijuana to minors by only allowing minors to have med- ical access if their parent or legal guardian grants written consent and agrees to I be the caregiver in control of the acquisition and possession of the minor's medi- cine. The state prevents criminal enterprise from profiting from medical cannabis revenue by requiring background checks of all prospective medical cannabis operators. Diversion is prevented by limiting the ability to legally purchase med- ical cannabis to qualified New Jersey patients or their caregivers. Violence and I use of firearms is prevented by requiring owners and employees to submit to criminal background checks. It remains illegal for patients to operate any motor vehicle while under the influence of medical cannabis. The program does not authorize patients or providers to bring medicine onto federal property. NEW MEXICO The Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act (Sll 523, 2007) prevents distribution I to minors by requiring that the custodial parent or legal guardian of a youth patient grant written consent to medical cannabis therapy for the child, and I requiring the parent or legal guardian to be the youth patient's caregiver in charge of dosage and frequency of medical use. To prevent revenue from going to crimi- nal enterprise and medical cannabis sales from being used as a pretext for other crimes, the law only authorizes "licensed producers" to engage in commercial production and sales. Section 4 of the Act prevents diversion by limiting criminal I protections to conduct that is related to medical use. Violence and the use of firearms at productions facilities is mitigated by the requirement for all medical. cannabis production to take place on "secured grounds." This same provision. also ensures that medical cannabis cannot be grown on public lands. Not only does drugged driving remain illegal, but also New Mexico's medical cannabis I law specifies that those who drive under the influence of medical cannabis are For morn information, see■ ww.AmericansForSatteAccess.org or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4307 or 202-857-4272 23 I 1 Slate Laws on Medical C annabic Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on nforcement liable for damages and subject to criminal prosecution. The program does not ' authorize patients or providers to bring medicine onto federal property. New Mexico allows qualified patients and caregivers to cultivate a limited number of plants for personal use. 1 RHODE ISLAND The Edward 0. Hawkins and Thomas C. Slater Medical Marijuana Act (SB 0710, 2006) prevents distribution of marijuana to minors by requiring parents or legal ' guardians to grant written consent. and to agree to be the minor patient's caregiv- er in charge of acquisition and administration of the medicine. Rhode Island pre- vents criminal enterprise from entering the market or using medical cannabis as a pretext for other illegal activity via the licensure system set forth in 22 MRSA § 21-28.6-12. Diversion is addressed by only granting legal protection to patients ' and caregivers engaging in conduct related to medical use. Violence and use of firearms are prevented by detailed security procedures that owners of medical cannabis businesses must submit to the state for approval. Driving under the influence of medical cannabis remains illegal. The program does not authorize patients or providers to bring medicine onto federal property. Rhode Island ' allows qualified patients and caregivers to cultivate a limited number of plants for personal use. VERMONT Vermont's Act Relating to Marijuana Use by Persons with Severe Illness (SR 76, 2004) prevents distribution of marijuana to minors by requiring parental consent for minors to become legally protected patients. Those who provide medical ' cannabis to patients must be registered with the state, which prevents revenue from ending up in the hands of criminal enterprise and the program from being ' used as a pretext for other illicit activities. The law requires the implementation of regulations "with the goal of protecting against diversion and theft." Driving under the influence of medical cannabis is illegal. The cultivation of medical ' cannabis is prevented on public lands by requiring all medical cannabis to be grown in an "enclosed, locked facility." The program does not authorize patients ' or providers to bring medicine onto federal property. Vermont allows qualified patients and caregivers to cultivate a limited number of plants for personal use. 1 For more information,see www.Americansr orSateAcces.nrg or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 202-857-4272 24 1 State Laws on Medical Cannabis Ld tributinn and Dopartment of Justice Guidance on Loforc ernent WASHINGTON Under Washington's Medical Use of Marijuana Act (Initiative 692, 1998), 1 patients under the age of 18 are only permitted use of medical cannabis under the direction of a physician, as with prescription medications. Washington state law i allows qualilied patients and caregivers to cultivate a limited number of plants for personal use. Additionally, several municipalities throughout the state have enacted local zoning and regulation ordinances pertaining to distribution, For example, Seattle City Ordinance No. 123661 subjects the "manufacture, produc- tion, processing, possession, transportation, delivery, dispensing, application, or 1 administration of cannabis" to all existing city laws, such as business licensing, building and construction code, and food service and handling requirements. Section 69.51A.140 of the .Revised Code of Washington authorizes county and municipal governments to draft ordinances "pertaining to the production, pro- cessing, or dispensing of cannabis or cannabis products within their jurisdiction. As of November 2013, over a dozen cities and counties in Washington State have passed ordinances regulating how patients and caregivers may operate collective gardens. Washington lawmakers and other state officials are currently developing new statewide regulations for the distribution of marijuana, with the intent of sat- isfying federal concerns. 1 1 1 1 1 For more information,see www.Arneric:ansForSateAccess.org or contact the ASA office at 1-888-979-4367 or 702-887-4272 25 I State Laws on Medina!Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Ouiri;anr Fa on Enforcement I STATES WITH RECENTLY CREATED DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS Preventing Preventing Preventing Preventing Preventing Preventing Preventing Preventing 1 distribution to revenue from diversion of trafficking violence and drugged growing of marijuana I minors going to marijuana to other illegal the use of driving marijuana on possession or criminal other states drugs or other firearms public lands use on federal enterprises illegal activity property CT I Conn. Conn. Conn. Conn. Conn.Gen. Conn.Gen. Conn.Gen. State law Agencies Agencies Agencies Agencies Stat §21a- Stat §21a- Stat §21a- cannot Regs.§ Sec. Regs.§ Sec. Regs.§ 21a- Regs.§ 21a- 1 408(10). 408h(G). 408a(b)(2). authorize 21a-408-24 21a-408-24 408-24(a). 408-20(58). IDel.Code Del.Code Del.Code Del.Code Del.Code Del.Code Del.Code State law DE Ann.Tit 16§ Ann.Tit 16§ Ann.Tit 16§ Ann.Tit 16§ Ann.Tit 16§ Ann.Tit 16§ Ann.Tit 16§ cannot 4909A(b). §4919A. §4919A(e). §4919A. §4915A. §4904A. 4902A(f). authorize I Public Act Public Act Public Act Public Act Public Act 098-0122§ 098-0122§ Public Act Public Act 098-0122§ 098-0122§ State law 098-0122§ 098-0122§ 098-0122§ IL 30(a)(3)(G) 130(h)(Ill., 30(a)(5)(III., 105(d)(Ill., cannot I (lit.,eff. 15(c)(III.,eff. 10(1)(Ill,eff. (Ill.,Eff.Jan 1 15(c) eff.Jan.1, eff.Jan. 1, eff.Jan.1, authorize 2014). Jan.1,2014). 2014). Jan. 1,2014). Jan. 1,2014). 2014). 2014). 105 Code 105 Code 105 Code I 105 Code 105 Code Mass.Rules 105 Code 105 Code Mass.Rules Mass.Rules State law MA Mass.Rules Mass.Rules 725.004 Mass.Rules Mass.Rules 725.650(8)(1) 725.105(8)(1) cannot 725.010(1). 725.1050). "Qualifying 725.030(A). 725.110. (c) authorize I Patiant" Nev.Rev. Nev. Rev. Nev.Rev. Nev.Rev. Nev.Rev. Nev. Rev. Nev. Rev. State law Stat.§ Stat.§ Stat.§ NV Stat.§ Stat.§ Stat.§ cannot 453A.210(2)( Stat.§ 453A.300(1)( 453A.300(1)( I 453A.210(3). 453A.356. c). 453A.322. 453A.352. authorize c). a). 2013 N.H. 2013 N.H. 2013 N.H. 2013 N.H. 2013 N.H. 2013 N.H. 2013 N.H. State law Laws 126- I NH Laws 126- Laws 126- Laws 126- Laws 126- W.7(IV)(13) (c). Laws 126- Laws 126- cannot W:4(V). W:7. W:1(XIII). W:7. W:3(II)(a)(1). W:8(XV)(c). authorize 2013 Or. 2013 Or. Or.Rev.Stat. State law ' Or.Rev.Stat. Or.Rev.Stat. Or.Rev.Stat. §475.304. cannot OR Or. Rev.Stat. §475.309(3). Laws Chap. §475.300(4). Laws Chap. §475.304(6). §475.316(1) 726. 726. (a). authorize I CONNECTICUT I In 2012, Connecticut legislators passed An Act Concerning the Palliative Use of Marijuana. (FIB 5389) by a margin of 2:1, even though Governor Dan.Malloy received a letter from U.S. Attorney for Connecticut David Fein that threatened Iprosecution of state employees. The state's Department of Consumer Protection issued final regulations on September 6, 2013 that meet or exceed the current I federal standard. The Connecticut program exceeds the guideline on preventing distribution to minors by not allowing anyone under the age of 18 to become a IFor more information,see wnrwnr.AmeriransForSateAcces;.org or contact Lhe ASA office et 1-888-929-4367 or 202-857-4272 I 26 I state Law:;on Medical c_annabl5 Di5iribution and Department of justice Guidance on Enforcement I registered patient, even if it is medically necessary. Connecticut prevents crimi- nal enterprises from obtaining medical cannabis revenue by licensing those who cultivate and sell medical cannabis. Diversion into other states is prevented by only allowing registered residents of Connecticut to enter a dispensary. Connecticut prevents medical cannabis from being used a pretext for other crimi- I nal activity by requiring criminal background checks of everyone who applies to work for a state-licensed medical cannabis provider. This background check, in conjunction with the state's strict gun laws, helps prevent violence and the use of guns in cultivating and distributing medical cannabis. Growing on public lands is prevented by state regulations that limit all medical cannabis to indoor produc- tion facilities. Driving under the influence of medical cannabis is illegal. The pro- gram does not authorize patients or providers to bring medicine onto federal • property. DELAWARE Governor Jack Markell signed into law the Delaware Medical Marijuana Act (SB 17) on May 13, 2011, creating a system of medical cannabis dispensaries in the state to be capped at one per county in the initial years of the program. The Delaware Department of Health and Social Services issued draft regulations to , implement the program; however-, Governor Markell suspended the program in February 2012 after he received a letter from the US Attorney for Delaware advising him that state employees may be prosecuted for implementing the law. As a result, Delaware's medical cannabis program remained dormant. for more than a year. Then, on August 15, 2013, two weeks before the 2013 Cole Memo was issued, Governor Markell announced the program would be restarting. New draft regulations were issued in October, which will he finalized by January 1, 2014. The Department of Health and Social Services is expected to select a ven- dor to operate a single distribution center by May 2014, which would open in the summer. The center will only be allowed to cultivate up to 150 marijuana plants, 1 and keep an inventory of no more than 1,500 ounces (93.75 lbs.) of cannabis. The Delaware Medical Marijuana Act and draft regulations either meet or exceed I the guideline standards set forth in the 2013 Cole Memo. Delaware is one of only two states that completely forbid those under the age of 18 from becoming regis- tered cardholders, regardless of their medical necessity—a level of restriction that exceeds the 2013 Cole Memo guideline on minors. By creating a system of regu- lated dispensaries, the Delaware program helps ensure that revenue from the sales of medical cannabis only go to those who are vetted and licensed by the For more information, see www.Am 9 ericansFnr5ateAccess.or or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 202-857-4272 27 I I .State Lows on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement I state, and who will be closely monitored to prevent any criminal activity. The law bans anyone who has ever been convicted of a felony from owning or working for a medical cannabis provider in the state. Cannabis grown for the program must be cultivated in an enclosed, locked facility authorized by the state, thereby preventing marijuana from being grown on public thuds. The program does not authorize patients or providers to bring medicine onto federal property. ' ILLINOIS Illinois' Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act (HB1, 2013), one of the strictest medical cannabis laws in the country, meets or exceeds ' each of the eight guidelines set forth in the 2013 Cole Memo, The law exceeds the guideline on preventing distribution to minors by making it illegal to use medical cannabis in the presence of minor. Criminal enterprise is prevented from ' entering the market by Section 15 of the Act, which sets parameters for licensing and regulating providers. Diversion is prevented by only allowing patients to ' obtain a 14-day supply of medicine. Violence and firearm involvement is pre- vented by prohibiting anyone with a record of serious violent crime from becom- ing a medical cannabis provider. Driving while under the influence of medical ' cannabis is prohibited. Marijuana is prevented from being grown on public land by requiring that all medical cannabis be grown in an enclosed, locked facility. ' The program does not authorize patients or providers to bring medicine onto fed- eral property. ' MASSACHUSETTS Massachusetts' Law for the Humanitarian Medical. Use of Marijuana (Ballot fQuestion 3, 2012) places much of the regulatory details of the program in the hands of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, which issued regula.- 1 tions in May and June of 2013. Those regulations prevent distribution to minors by only allowing people under the age of 18 to become qualified patients if they have a "life-limiting illness" or obtain a recommendation from two separate ' physicians; the minor's parent or legal guardian must also grant written consent to medical cannabis therapy after being informed about its risks and benefits and ' agreeing to act as the designated caregiver. Criminal enterprises are prevented from obtaining medical cannabis revenue by ' the state licensing and monitoring those who will be cultivating and selling cannabis. The regulations prevent the program from being used as a pretext to I or more intormation, coo www.Amencansl-orSeteAccess.orq or contact the ASA office at 1-888-979-4367 err 707-857-4772 28 1 State Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement sell other illegal drugs by prohibiting those with felony drug convictions from becoming dispensary agents and by screening prospective dispensary owners for criminal histories. Diversion into other states is prevented by only allowing regis- tered Massachusetts resident cardholders to enter dispensaries. The law prevents cannabis from being grown on public property by requiring dispensaries to culti- 1 vate cannabis in a designated facility that is open to inspection by the state. The program does not authorize patients or providers to bring cannabis onto federal property. Massachusetts allows qualified patients and caregivers to cultivate a limited number of plants for personal use. NEVADA Nevada's Medical Marijuana Initiative (Ballot Question 9, 2000), amended by the legislature in 2001 and 2013, includes a medical cannabis dispensary program which meets the guidelines. Diversion to minors is prevented by requiring par- ' ents to give written consent and agree to be the child's designated caregiver. The passage of S.B. 374 enables state regulators to create a medical cannabis dispen- sary system that prevents criminal enterprise from obtaining medical cannabis revenue or using the program as a pretext for criminal activity. Existing law in Nevada prevents the diversion. of medical cannabis from exiting the state and prevents the use of firearms with medical cannabis conduct. Nevada patients are explicitly prohibited from being under the influence of cannabis while behind the wheel. Growing on public land is prevented by specifying all legal medical cannabis cultivation must take place in an enclosed, locked facility. The program does not authorize patients or providers to bring medicine onto federal property, 1 Nevada allows qualified patients and caregivers to cultivate a limited number of plants for personal use. NEW HAMPSHIRE New Hampshire's Act. Relative to the Use of Cannabis for Therapeutic Purposes (HB 573, 2013) meets the standard set forth in the 2013 Cole Memo. Distribution 1 to minors is prevented by requiring minor patients to have written consent from their parent or legal guardian, who must also agree to be the designated caregiv- er. Section 126-W:7 of the act sets forth the parameters which will prevent rev- enue from going to criminal enterprise as well as prevent the medical cannabis law from being a pretext for other criminal activity. The law prohibits out of state patients from being able to purchase medical cannabis in New Hampshire, pre- roe rune-information,see www.AmericansForSafeAccess.orq or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 202-857-4777 29 1 State Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement 1 venting diversion into other states. The law prevents violence at cultivation and ' distribution locations by requiring review of each dispensary application "for the safety of the public." Growing on public lands is prevented by requiring all med- ical cannabis cultivation to take place in an enclosed, locked facility. Tt is illegal ' for medical cannabis patients in New Hampshire to drive while under the influ- ence of medical cannabis. The program does not authorize patients or providers ' to bring medicine onto federal property. OREGON ' The Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (Ballot Measure 67. 1999) contains provi- sions that meet the majority of guidelines set forth in the 2013 Cole Memo, and the addition of HB 3460 (2013) ensures that all eight of these benchmarks are addressed by state law. Distribution to minors is prevented by requiring parents ' to grant affirmative consent and agree to be the designated caregiver. TIB 3460 will set up a system of licensed and regulated dispensaries in the state, ensuring ' criminal enterprise will not benefit from medical cannabis revenue. Diversion is prevented by not granting legal protection for non-medical cannabis conduct. The OM.MA requires that all medical cannabis growers undergo a criminal back- ' ground check, helping to prevent violence with cultivation and distribution. Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of medical cannabis is pro- hibited. Rules to prevent medical cannabis from being grown on public lan.d are addressed by regulations. The program does not authorize patients or providers to bring cannabis onto federal property. Oregon allows qualified patients and care- ' givers to cultivate a limited number of plants for personal use. 1 1 1 1 1 For more information,see www.AmericansforSateAcces.org or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 702.8.57-42.72 30 I State Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement I STATES WITH PENDING LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS Preventing Preventing Preventing Preventing Preventing Preventing Preventing Preventing I distribution to revenue from diversion of trafficking violence and drugged growing of possession minors going to criminal marijuana to other illegal the use of driving marijuana on or use on I enterprises other states drugs or other firearms public lands federal illegal activity property Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas I Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Medical Medical Medical Medical State law Medical Medical Medical AR Cannabis Act Cannabis Act§ Cannabis Act§ Cannabis Act§ Cannabis Act Cannabis Act Cannabis Act cannot §105(b) 109(2014). 105(8)(2014). 109(2014). §109(d) § 107(a)(3) §106(e)(4) authorize (2014). (2014). (2014). (2014). 1 Dept.of Health to I Article X, Article X, Article X, Article X, Article X, Article X, State law regulate- FL Article X, Section Section Section Section Section Section cannot 29(d)(1) 29(c)(1) 29(d)(1) 29(d)(1)(c) 29(c)(3) 29(d)(1)(c) authorize Section 29(d)(1)(a) I 39-9106(1)(e) State law ID 39-9110(2) 39-9115 39-9106(1)(e) 39-9115 39-9105(4) 39-9115(3) cannot (iv) (v) I authorize Mich.Comp. Mich.Comp. Mich.Comp. Mich.Comp. Laws§§ Laws§§ Mich.Comp. Mich.Comp. Mich.Comp. Laws§ Laws§§ State law 333.26424(a) 333.26424(a) Laws§ Laws§ Laws§ I MI 333.26423(h) cannot 333.26426(b) and§ 333.26423(d) 333.26423(d) 333.26423 333.26427(b) 333.26423 authorize (2008) 333.26424(k) 333.26426(a)( 333.26426(a)( (h). (4). (d). 6). 6). I A.B.480, A.B.480, A.B.480, A.B.480, 101st A.B.480, A.B.480, 101st A.B.480, State law WI 101st Leg.,§ Leg.,§6(Wi. 101st Leg.,§ Leg.,§6(Wi. 101st Leg.,§ 101st Leg.,§ 101st Leg.,§ cannot 33 (Wi. 38(Wi. 38(Wi. I 2013) 2013). 26(Wi.2013). 2013). 6(Wi.2013). 2013). 2013). authorize ARKANSAS I The Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act is an initiative for which signatures are being gathered in order to place it on the November 2014 ballot. The law con- 1 tains provisions that meet each of'the eight guidelines in the 2013 Cole Memo. Distribution to minors is prevented by requiring that parents consent in writing to I medical cannabis therapy for their child and agree to be the child's caregiver in control of dosage. Criminal enterprise is prevented from obtaining medical. cannabis revenue or from using medical cannabis as a pretext for other criminal I activity by directing the Department of Health to issue regulations on nonprofit dispensaries. Violence and the use of firearms is prevented by requiring criminal I background checks of dispensary staff. Diversion is prevented by limiting the For more information,see www.AmericansForSatoAccess.orq or contact the ASA office at 1-888-979-4367 or 707-857-4777 I 31 I .Stare Laws on Medical Cannabis Gicinbution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement 1 amount a patient may obtain and by requiring patients to sign a statement swear- !! ing they will not illicitly divert any of their medicine. It would remain illegal for patients to drive while under the influence of medical cannabis. Growing on pub- lic lands is prevented by requiring the cultivation of all medical cannabis to take ' place in an enclosed, locked facility. The program does not authorize patients or providers to bring medicine onto federal property. If passed, the Arkansas ' Medical Cannabis Act would allow patients with certain hardships to cultivate medical cannabis for personal use with the approval of the state health depart- ment. FLORIDA Another initiative currently gathering signatures for the 2014 ballot is Florida's Constitutional Amendment "Use of Marijuana for Certain Medical Conditions," ' which would create a program to regulate dispensaries and allow for patient cul- tivation- The initiative is similar to Massachusetts's Question 3 (2012), in that ' both measure leave much authority and decision-making to the state health department. in Massachusetts, the Department of Public Health has enacted rules that are compliant with the 2013 Cole Memo, and Florida can be expected to fol- Ilow suit. Florida's amendment would allow the Department of Health (DOH) to create rules that would allow minor's to have access to medical marijuana only ' with written consent of their parent an.d only if the parent agrees to remain in control of the possession and administration of the medicine. The DOH would create rules pertaining to dispensaries and cultivation facilities that would prevent violence and revenue going to criminals, while ensuring that medical marijuana is not cultivated on public land. The program does not authorize patients or providers to bring cannabis onto federal property. IDAHO ' Idaho's Initiative Relating to Medical Marijuana, currently circulating for signa- tures to make the 2014 ballot, would be compliant with the guidelines in the 2013 Cole Memo. The measure would prevent distribution to youth by only allowing them to become patients if their parent or legal guardian grants written ' consent and agrees to be their caregiver in charge of the acquisition, possession and administration of their medical cannabis. The Department of Health and Welfare would be charged with creating rules that would permit medical organi- zations to be registered with die state to cultivate and sell medical cannabis to For more information,see www.AmericansForSateAccess.org or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4.367 or 202-857-4777 32 1 State Laws on Medical(annabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement patients and their caregivers, preventing revenue from going to criminal enter- prise or medical cannabis being used as a pretext for other illegal activity. Additionally, the department must also draft regulations to prevent safety threats and diversion at medical cannabis cultivation and sales locations. Medical cannabis must be cultivated on private property, thereby preventing cultivation on 1 public lands- The law forbids patients from operating motor vehicles while under the influence of medical cannabis. The program does not authorize patients or providers to bring cannabis onto federal property. MICHIGAN 1 The Medical Marihuana. Provisioning Center Regulation Act (HB 427 I ) under current consideration by the Michigan 'Clouse of Representatives would create a system to "regulate medical marihuana provisioning centers and other related entities," enabling qualified patients to purchase medical cannabis from licensed, 1 regulated businesses. Distribution to minors would be prevented by allowing only the parent or legal guardian of a patient under the age of 18 to purchase medical cannabis from provisioning centers. HB 4271 would prevent criminal involve- ment by not allowing anyone with a felony conviction in the past 10 years to become an agent (employee or owner) of a provisioning center and allowing 1 patients to buy medical cannabis under the regulatory parameters of the 2013 Cole Memo and not from criminal enterprises. Under HB 4271, diversion would be prevented by only allowing transportation of medical cannabis between the provisioning center and the residence of a patient or caregiver living in the state. The business license of a provisioning center would be revoked if the center 1 knowingly or negligently distributed medical cannabis to non-authorized persons. Violence and use of firearms would he prevented by 1113 4271's language pro- 1 hihiting anyone with a felony conviction within the past. 10 years from becoming a. dispensary agent,just as Michigan's current law prohibits those individuals from cultivating medical cannabis or acting as caregivers. Like the existing med- ical cannabis law in Michigan, HB 4271 could not be used as a shield for engag- ing in conduct with other illegal drugs or other illegal activity. Michigan's current ' program explicitly forbids anyone from driving a ear or operating any other sort. of motor vehicle while under the influence of medical cannabis. Environmental damage and growing on public lands is prevented under current law by only per- mitting medical cannabis to be grown in enclosed, locked facilities that are on property owned or leased by the patient or caregiver. Neither current law nor- 1-'C13 I 4271 authorizes possession or use on federal property. Michigan law currently For mom information,see www.AmericansForSafeAcre;s.nrg or contact the ASA nttice at 1-888-929-4367 or 702-857-4277 B 1 State Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Deparirneni of Justice Guidance on tntorc emPnt 1 allows qualified patients and caregivers to cultivate a limited number of plants for personal use. WISCONSIN Wisconsin's pending medical cannabis dispensary legislation (AB480, SB363), ' introduced in October 2013, would prevent distribution to minors by only allow- ing them to become patients if their parent or legal guardian grants written con- sent and agrees to be their designated caregiver in control of the medicine. The bill would authorize the Department of I-Iealth to license and regulate compassion centers, which would prevent criminal enterprise from profiting from medical cannabis or using it as a pretext for criminal activity. Diversion would be pre- vented by denying a legal defense to anyone who diverts medical cannabis fir non-medical uses. Growing on public lands is prevented by licensing and inspec- 1 lion requirements that mandate dispensaries be "safe and secure faciiiti[es]," and that all cannabis plants be grown in a "lockable, enclosed facility." Medical cannabis patients may not operate a motor vehicle if they are under the influence. The program does not authorize patients or providers to bring medicine onto fed- eral property. I I I 1 1 1 1 1 For more information,see www.Americansror;afeAcces°,.nry or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 202-857-4272 Sate Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and DeparTrnrnt of Justice Guidance on Enforcement 1 5. HISTORY SHOWS SOME US ATTORNEYS IGNORE GUIDELINES Since California enacted the first medical cannabis law in 1996, states have con- sistently acted to regulate the production and distribution of medical cannabis to ensure safe access for patients while minimizing any negative impacts on the 1 community. As a result, state laws effectively satisfied the enforcement concerns of the federal government—inconsistent and highly selective federal enforcement actions notwithstanding, 2009 Ogden Memo The DOJ memorandum issued October 19, 2009, by then-Deputy Attorney General David A. Ogden was widely received as the fulfillment of President Oba.ma's campaign pledge to not use limited federal resources against state- approved medical cannabis programs. The memo's direction to federal prosecu- tors that they "should not focus federal resources in [their] States on individuals 1 whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana" was understood by many state law- makers and medical cannabis advocates to include anyone operating state-regu- lated dispensaries or other distribution mechanisms. That is because the memo distinguishes sales and distribution conducted in compliance with state law from 1 that which is not when it says "prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlaw- fully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department." As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (.D-RI), a former US Attorney, noted during the September 10, 2013, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing, "Conflicts between State and Federal Marijuana Laws": A close reading of the paragraph indicates that the term 'unlawful' refers to state law... So we come out of the Ogden memorandum with protec- tion from federal prosecution for patients, caregivers, and lawful com- mercial enterprises..,that would presumably include dispensaries. From 2009 until the issuance of the 2011 Cole Memo, the States of Colorado, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, and Delaware, as well as the District of Columbia, approved new medical cannabis laws or expanded already existing 1 programs. The Ogden Memo lists seven characteristics of noncompliance, including: unla.w- U ful possession or use of firearms; violence; sales to minors; financial and market- For w.Arn oric�nsFnrSafeAccess.or. or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4357 or 202-857-4272 for more information,see ww E � g -±,tatf lows on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement 1 i-ng activities inconsistent with state law; amounts of marijuana inconsistent with compliance with state or local law; illegal possession or sale of other controlled substances; or ties to other criminal enterprises. Despite those concrete guide- lines, US Attorneys in several states decided to prosecute medical cannabis ' providers for violations of federal law without offering evidence that they failed to comply with state law. The first raid of state-approved medical cannabis ' providers in the wake of the Ogden Memo came in January 2010,just two months after it was issued. That was followed by five more federal raids the next month, another five in April, and then with even more frequency as the year pro- gressed. By the end of 2010, the number of known federal raids on state-licensed or otherwise compliant medical cannabis providers grew to 50, with federal inter- ference reaching California, Colorado, Michigan, and Nevada. On February 1, 2011, the first known letter threatening federal prosecution of state ' officials and state or municipal employees was sent by U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag to Oakland City Attorney John Russo (see appendix). The letter informed Russo that in addition to the individuals who operate a medical cannabis facility, ' "others who knowingly facilitate the actions of the licensees...should also know that their conduct violates federal law," and that "[p]otential actions the Department is considering include...criminal prosecution." Similar letters were sent to public officials in at least 10 other states during the first half of 2011, many with far--reaching consequence, including one that derailed the Washington State legislature's attempt to create a more robustly reg- I elated medical cannabis dispensary system. In vetoing provisions of a dispensary licensing bill, t hen-Governor Christine Gregoire said: ' We cannot presume to assure protections to one group of people... patients, providers and health care professionals---in a way that subjects another group, Department of Health and Department of Agriculture employees, to federal arrest or criminal liability- That is not acceptable to me; it is not workable. ' Also in 201.1., the DEA got a federal court order to gain access to the State of Michigan's patient records, even though the state's medical cannabis law guaran- iteed patient privacy and prohibited such disclosures.' Threats of prosecution and violations of patient privacy were not the only federal ' tactics aimed at commandeering state public health policy. Just hours before a 5 "Judge:Michigan must turn over medical marijuana records related to a federal drug investigation,"ML.ivc Media, June 4,2011. ' For more intormation, see www,AmericancForSateAccess.org or contact'the'ASA nttice at 1-888-929-4367 or 207-857-4272 36 State Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement 1 March 14, 2011, vote in the Montana Senate on a bill to repeal the medical cannabis law approved by voters, the DEA simultaneously raided 26 providers across the state. The raids resulted in the gutting of the state's medical cannabis law instead of the passage of proposed regulations for distribution, as well as 16 federal indictments, with one operator of a licensed business left to face a manda- tory minimum sentence of 90 years in federal prison. Not only did the DEA and other federal agents raid providers in Montana, California., Colorado, Michigan, and Nevada without apparent consideration of the providers' compliance with state law, once the providers became defendants 1 in federal court, they were (arid continue to he) denied the right to even mention their state's medical cannabis law, much less demonstrate how they complied with it. 2011 Cole Memo The 2011 DOJ memorandum issued June 29, 2011 by incoming Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole was framed as a clarification of the policy set forth in the Ogden Memo but made clear that only individual patients and their primary care- givers would be protected from federal marijuana enforcement. All distribution operations, no matter how closely regulated by state or local authorities, were I now vulnerable to federal prosecution. The Cole memo also stated that the threat letters sent to state and local officials were entirely consistent with DO] policy. I On August 15, 2011, the Eureka City Council received a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California stating that the city's publicly vetted licensing plan "threatens the federal government's efforts to regulate, the possession, manufacturing, and trafficking of controlled substances." The letter added that, "I f the City of Eureka were to proceed, this office would consider- 1 injunctive actions, civil fines, criminal prosecution, and the forfeiture of any property used to facilitate a violation of[federal law]" (see appendix). Because of these threats, the City of Eureka suspended implementation of its local ordinance. In September 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 1 (ATE), another arm of the 1)0], issued a memo prohibiting gun dealers from sell- ing firearms to registered medical cannabis patients. The ATM offered no substan- tiated claim for why medical cannabis patients should be denied their Second Amendment right to bear arms. in October 2011, the four U.S. Attorneys for California held a rare press confer- 1 For more information,see www.AmencansForSafeAccess.orq or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 707-857-4777 37 1 State Laws on Medical(orinohis DIstnbution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement 1 ence, announcing a campaign to destroy the state's 15-year-old production and ' distribution system, using raids, criminal prosecutions, and asset forfeiture. In addition to raids and prosecutions, the U.S. Attrneys' threat letters to landlords of medical cannabis businesses has resulted in the closure of more than 600 dis- pensaries. Forfeiture lawsuits have been filed against more than two-dozen prop- erty owners. In January 2012, US Attorney for Colorado John Walsh sent similar 1 letters to dozens of property owners in his state, publicly characterizing them as "not a bluff." ' On June 11, 2012,just four days after Attorney General holder testified before Congress that the DOJ was only raiding those "out of conformity with state law," federal agents stormed El Camino Wellness Center, a licensed medical cannabis dispensary in Sacramento, California. El Camino Wellness was a non-profit cooperative that served 27,000 patients in the Sacramento area and was one of a number of medical cannabis businesses that operated with union workers (UFCW Local 5). It was located nowhere near a school, net all state and local guidelines for operation, and had the support of Sacramento City Council members--one of ' whom wrote to U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner questioning the need to target city-sanctioned health facilities. Threats of criminal prosecution and asset forfei- t tore have resulted in the closure of almost all of the dispensaries that were oper- ating in unincorporated Sacramento County. ' On July 10, 2012, one of California's best-known medical cannabis dispensaries, Harborside Health Center, was sued by U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag for "forfei- 1 tore of property" against the "third-party" property owner, Real Property and Improvements, though the Oakland dispensary has been fully permitted and oper- ating since 2006 without incident. This action mirrors another property forfeiture ' lawsuit she has recently leveled against Berkeley Patients Group, another well- respected Bay Area dispensary that has operated with the strong support of local officials for more than a decade. I 1 For more information,see www.AmericansForSateAccess.orq or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 202-857-4272 38 1 State Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Oebartrnenn of iustire Guidance on Enforcement 6. ENDING THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONFLICT The 2013 Cole Memo was written as a guide for US Attorneys in deciding when ' to prosecute marijuana cases. However, the vast discretion left to individual US Attorneys usurps state law enforcement authority and undermines equal protec- ' tion under the law. During the September 2013 US Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on state marijuana laws, Senators Whitehouse and Blumenthal noted the potential pitfalls of such broad discretion and requested the DOJ issue clearly defined metrics for the enforcement priorities in the 2013 Cole Memo. When questioned about whether such metrics would be issued. DAG Cole responded 1 that the Department is working to produce them. In the meantime, US Attorneys should defer to state enforcement efforts made under their current laws. If the forthcoming DOJ metrics mean some states will need to adjust their programs to better align with federal priorities, DOJ should allow states attempting to meet. the guidelines sufficient time to bring themselves into compliance through nor- , mal legislative processes. Both through its statements and actions, the DOJ has made clear any binding ' reforms in federal policy with respect to state medical cannabis laws must come from the Congress. The three 'DOT-memos all contain the refrain, "Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug."Attorney General Holder has declined to use his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to reschedule marijuana or remove it from the CSA, instead opting to maintain the outdated 1 position that it has "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." The autonomy with which US Attorneys operate has meant some state medical cannabis programs have been almost untouched while federal prosecu- tors in other states have threatened lawmakers; violated patient privacy protec- tions; recruited local law enforcement. to engage in anti-medical cannabis 1 lobbying campaigns; and raided, arrested, prosecuted and incarcerated scores of patients and providers. States such as California, Washington, Oregon, Michigan and others where most of the total federal enforcement against medical cannabis providers has been car- ried out are not likely to see relief. Statements made by US Attorneys in response to the 2013 Cole Memo reveal that some prosecutors have no intention of com- ing into compliance with the DOJ guidelines, despite their history of targeting 1 medical cannabis. "We looked at this and the conclusion was this doesn't really change anything arr or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 202-857-4777 For more inlorrrr,ation, ;ca www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org 0 _. 39 ,.fate Laws on Medical Cannabis Distribution arid Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement for us," said Amanda Marshall, the US Attorney for Oregon, in an interview with ' The Oregonian. "We would still be prosecuting these same cases we have done in the past and the same cases we have open right now." That view was echoed by a spokeswoman for US Attorney for the District of Northern California Melinda Haag, who told the East Bay Express, "The office is evaluating the new guidelines, and for the most part it appears that the eases that ' have been brought in this district are already in compliance with the guidelines. Therefore, we do not expect a significant change." All of this highlights the need for Congress to take action on comprehensive solutions that avoid needless human suffering, end the waste of millions of tax- payer dollars, and ensure all states and the medical cannabis patients in them enjoy equal application of the law. FEDERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Temporary Fix—CJS Appropriations Amendment On May 9, 2012, several members of Congress introduced a bipartisan amend- ' went to the Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) appropriations bill that would have barred the Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Administration from ' using any of the approved funds to prevent the implementation of state medical cannabis laws. The amendment received the support of 73% of Democrats and 12% of Republicans, a significant increase from the 2007 version. ' The CJS Amendment would recognize the right of states to operate their own programs with respect to medical cannabis, without prohibitive interference from ' the DOJ. The CJS Amendment would not reschedule or otherwise "legalize" medical cannabis. it also would not prevent the DOJ from using funds to enforce ' federal laws against those who do not operate in compliance with state and local medical cannabis laws. But it would allow the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, -Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, ' Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont., and Washington, as well as the District ' of Columbia, to fully implement the programs authorized by their laws. This approach would allow states that are presently seeking to add statewide medical cannabis regulations a period of time to consider changes that may better comport with the new DOJ guidelines, while simultaneously providing more pro- ' For more informabnn, see www AmericansForSafeACCess.org or contact the ASA office at 1--888-929-4367 or 202-857-4272 ' 1 t rte 1 aw.•on Medical Cannabis Distribution and Department of Justice Guidance on Enforcement tection and confidence in the states that have already approved regulated distribu- tion models. However, this approach would only last one fiscal year, and without some sort of permanent solution would need to be passed again. Intermediate Solution—Truth in Trials,Marijuana Businesses Access to Banking,and Small Business Tax Equity,Respect State Marijuana Laws Act Short of comprehensive federal legislation, there are several meaningful and 1 binding individual-issue bills that Congress can adopt to ensure that the DOT and other federal agencies respect state medical marijuana laws. For more than a decade, Congressman Sam Farr (D-CA) has repeatedly intro- duced the Truth in Trials Act (HR 710, 113th). This bipartisan legislation would allow federal medical cannabis defendants to offer evidence in federal court of their lawful state conduct, which is something they are presently forbidden from doing. Though the Truth in Trials Act has been introduced regularly with between I 12-32 cosponsors, the bill has yet to receive a committee hearing. Truth in Trials is an essential intermediate bill because it would give meaning in federal court to the eight enforcement guidelines set forth in the 2013 Cole Memo. Had Truth in Trials been in effect at the time of the 2009 Ogden Meni.o, the efforts of the Obama Administration to undermine state medical cannabis laws likely would ' have been substantially reduced. Medical catulabis businesses currently face financial challenges unlike any other ' state-authorized businesses. The federal crackdown on state medical cannabis laws means these businesses are unable to deposit revenue into banks, which means they are forced to act as cash-only operations. Similarly, the federal tax code forbids m.edica.1 cannabis businesses from deducting business expenses from their federal tax liability. To address these issues, Representatives Earl Blum.enauer (D-OR) and ' Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) have respectively introduced the current versions of the Small Business Tax Equity Act (HR 2240) and Marijuana Businesses Access to Banking Act of 2013 (l{R 2652). HR 2240 would allow state-authorized medical cannabis businesses to deduct businesses expenses when filing their federal taxes, while 1W 2652 would grant "safe harbor" to financial institutions who accept 1 deposits from medical cannabis businesses. These two bills would mean that med- ical cannabis businesses would no longer be subject to the discrimination and tax burden that no other state-authorized businesses are forced to bear. Another intermediate measure would prohibit federal enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act against medical cannabis conduct that is in compli- For more information, see www.ArnericansForSateAccess.orq or contact We ASA office at 1-888-979-4357 or 707-877-4777 41 1 State Laws on Medical Cannabis Dictri/aution and Deparirneni of justice Guidance on Lntorrerne-nt ancc with state law. Representative Dana Rolu-abacher (.R-CA) has introduced ' the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act (HR 1523), which would allow medical cannabis patients and providers to act in accordance with their respective state laws without fear of federal prosecution. These patients and providers would still ' be subject to the medical cannabis laws of their state, and those who violate state law could still face prosecution- While HR 1523 would stymie the present DOJ ' crackdown, it does not address issues such as rescheduling and facilitating med- ical research. Permanent Solution—HR 689 Introduced by .Rep. Earl Rlunienaucr (D-OR), the State's Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act (HR 689) would reclassify marijuana to recognize its med- ical value and prevent interference by the federal government in any local or state-run medical cannabis program. The bill would bar the federal government. ' from prohibiting or restricting an individual or entity authorized under state law from obtaining, possessing, transporting within their state, or ma.nufact.uring mar- ' ijuana. on behalf of an authorized patient. HR 689 would reclassify marijuana out our Schedule I and requires the US Attorney General to transfer control of mari- juana for medical research from the National Institute on Drug Abuse to an arm ' of the Executive Branch that is not focused on researching addiction. ' STATE RECOMMENDATIONS ' For state officials, the 2013 Cole Memo presents the best available set of guide- lines to avoid federal inference when creating new medical cannabis programs or amending existing ones. To be clear, the 2013 Cole Memo does not provide guid- ance on how to create patient-focused medical cannabis legislation, as the memo was drafted without regard to the medical value of cannabis. Lawmakers should ' consider ASA's "Legislating Compassion" guide for ways to create patient- focused legislation, as it is possible to draft legislation that is both patient- focused and compliant with the 2013 Cole Memo. ' States that are considering adopting or revising a medical cannabis program can look to how other states have established well-regulated medical cannabis distri- tbution systems that guard against the concerns the 2013 Cole Memo says are DOJ enforcement priorities. In looking to other states for examples, lawmakers should. realize that while it may appeal to some political factions to draft the "strictest" medical cannabis laws in the country, there is no need to establish overly restric- For mom information,see www.AmericansfiorSateAccess.org or contact the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 202-851-4777 42 State Laws on Medical cannabis Distribution and Department n1 hrtitice(,uidanee?nn Enforrcerriect tive programs in order to ensure their programs are compliant with the most recent set of DOJ guidelines. hi fact, overly restrictive programs harm patients by mak- ing it difficult to obtain a physician's recommendation, get registered in a pro- gram, or have dispensaries open with medicine available for patients. Lawmakers should consider first the needs of patients when tailoring their pro- grams to he compliant with the 2013 Cole Memo guidelines. For example, when drafting a provision that prevents distributions to minors. a compassionate law will give parents and legal guardians the right. when medically necessary and appropri- ate, to allow their children to receive medical cannabis therapy with informed writ- ten consent. Additionally, state lawmakers should also recognize that. since 2009, the DOJ has consistently maintained that individual cultivation of medical cannabis by patients or their caregivers is not a federal enibrcement.concern. 1 ABOUT THIS REPORT This report. was produced b y Americans for Safe Access (ASA). ASA is the l p y ( ) largest national member-based organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists, and concerned citizens promoting safe and legal access to marijuana for therapeutic use and research.A.SA works in partnership with state, local and national legislators to overcome barriers and create policies that improve access to marijuana for patients and researchers. ASA has more than 50,000 active members with chapters and affiliates in all 50 states. Learn more about ASA at American.sForSafeAccess.org. For more information, see www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org or contact the ASA oft ice at 1-888-929-4367 or 202-857-4272 43 ' t I)t°I►iar°ta►ia,rrt of .11lstit'a.. 1 \i()R;\\1)t \1 l:.t)1' i.l l N1111) ti I/VI 1 S :\ 1 1'OR\1 YS EON-es l 1)a\id \\ )gden ' I.)eput\ ;\ttorne\ General Investigations and Prosecutions in States \t&t}io}iiir,t{'. the Medical tseu1 *Marijuana kis memorandum provides clariiiealton and guidance 1ederal prosecutors in States tlaie ha'e. etaaeted lac s authorirhtg the medical use 01 marijuana. 1 hese laws \ar■ in then substallll\e provisions and in the estent of stale rep.uiator\ oversight. both among the enacting States and amoig local jurisdictions \\ithi!i those States. Rather than de\eloping difl rem ' .tuidelia)e: lOr even,. possible variant of state and local la\\, this memorandum provides uniform guidance to tiers iedetal investigations and prosecutions in these States on core iederal enforcemelat priorities. File i)epartmcnt ()I Justice is committed to the enle?icenaent of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. ('ongress has determined that marlivanu is a dangerous drug, and the illeial distribution and sate of ia'tar tiu ana is a serious crime and provides a significant source oi't'eVenue to large-scale criminal enterprises. Bangs. and cartels. One timely example underscores the importance of our efforts to prosecute significant marijuana traffickers: mmarijuana distribution in the ['Allied States remains the single largest souree of revenue for the Mexican cartels. I he Department is also committed to making efficient and rational use of its limited ili\e sti .atiye and prosecutorial resources. In general. t soled States Attorneys are vested with "plen tr\ autlturitt with regard to federal criminal matters- within their districts. IJSAM 9-2.001 . }n e\ercisi!tC this altthorit■. l'rnited States Attorrte■s are "invested h\° statute and delegation from they ,\ttOrne\ General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authorit\." hi. this authority should. or course. he exercised consistent with Department priorities and guidance, l he ilroseeution of significant ttalltel.eis 01 1}leeul ditl±`. 1neludinc nvarijuLnILL and the :ri,:!arlltie?n at ille(qal drug Inalttiluele1i1114.? and irafliekiilg iiel.\\orks continues to he a cote }?chant\ in the I)ep artnlent s citOris against narcotics and dangerous drugs. and the l)epartinent`s to c tieatl\c ',and prosecutorial resource's should he directed tei\a: rd•, these obiecnNeH As tt ceiier'al itttttter. pursuit '1 these priorities should not locus federal resources in \cll Slates on I I 1 I Memorandum for Selected United States Attorneys Page 2 Subject: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws I providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department's core enforcement priorities. Typically, when any of the following characteristics is present. the conduct will not be in 1 clear and unambiguous compliance with applicable state law and may indicate illegal drug trafficking activity of potential federal interest: • unlawful possession or unlawful use of firearms; • violence; • sales to minors; 1 • financial and marketing activities inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of state law, including evidence of money laundering activity and/or financial gains or excessive amounts of cash inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law; • amounts of marijuana inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law; • illegal possession or sale of other controlled substances; or • ties to other criminal enterprises. I Of course. no State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of factors above is not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal prosecution may be warranted. Accordingly. in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, federal prosecutors are not expected to charge, prove, or otherwise establish any state law violations. Indeed, this memorandum does not alter in any way the Department's authority to enforce federal law, including laws prohibiting the manufacture, production, distribution, possession, or use of marijuana on federal property. This guidance regarding resource allocation does not "legalize" marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural,enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter, Nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law or the absence of one or all of the above factors create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act, Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion. I I 1 i 1 Memorandum for Selected United States Attorneys Page 3 1 Subject: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana 1 Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution where there is a reasonable basis to believe that compliance with state law is being invoked as a pretext for the production or distribution of marijuana for purposes not authorized by state law. Nor does this guidance 1 preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests. Your offices should continue to review marijuana cases for prosecution on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the guidance on resource allocation and federal priorities set forth herein, the consideration of requests for federal assistance from state and local law enforcement. authorities. and the Principles of Federal Prosecution. cc: All United States Attorneys ' Lanny A. Breuer Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division 1 B. Todd Jones United States Attorney 1 District of Minnesota Chair. Attorney General's Advisory Committee ' Michele M. I...eonhart Acting Administrator Drug Enforcement orcement Administration ' H.Marshall Jarrett Director ' Executive Office for United States Attorneys Kevin L. Perkins. 1 Assistant Director Criminal Investigative Division Federal Bureau of Investigation 1 1 1 i U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Deputy Attorney General { Ithi'rrgw, I7.C'. 2r1510 June 29, 2011 1 lvllaMORANDUM FOR UNITED STAT" , TTOR FROM: James M. Cole '' t- Deputy Attorney General SUBJECT: Guidance Regarding the Ogden Memo in Jurisdictions Seeking to Authorize Marijuana for Medical Use Over the last several months some of you have requested the Department's assistance in responding to inquiries from State and local governments seeking guidance about the Department's position on enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in jurisdictions that have under consideration,or have implemented, legislation that would sanction and regulate the commercial cultivation and distribution of marijuana purportedly for medical use. Some of these jurisdictions have considered approving the cultivation of large quantities of marijuana, or broadening the regulation and taxation of the substance. You may have seen letters responding to these inquiries by several United States Attorneys. Those letters are entirely consistent with the October 2009 memorandum issued by Deputy Attorney General David Ogden to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana(the "Ogden Memo"). The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant source of revenue to large scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. The Ogden Memorandum provides guidance to you in deploying your resources to enforce the CSA as part of the exercise of the broad discretion you are given to address federal criminal matters within your districts. A number of states have enacted some form of legislation relating to the medical use of marijuana. Accordingly, the Ogden Memo reiterated to you that prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, remains a core priority, but advised that it is likely not an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law,or their caregivers. The term "caregiver"as used in the memorandum meant just that: individuals providing care to individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses, not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana. The Department's view of the efficient use of limited federal resources as articulated in the Ogden Memorandum has not changed. There has, however, been an increase in the scope of 1 i Memorandum for United States Attorneys Page 2 Subject: Guidance Regarding the Ogden Memo in Jurisdictions Seeking to Authorize Marijuana for Medical Use commercial cultivation, sale, distribution and use of marijuana for purported medical purposes. For example, within the past 12 months, several jurisdictions have considered or enacted legislation to authorize multiple large-scale, privately-operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers. Some of these planned facilities have revenue projections of millions of dollars based on the planned cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants. The Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those ' who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law. Consistent with resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution. State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financial laws. ' The Department of Justice is tasked with enforcing existing federal criminal laws in all states, and enforcement of the CSA has long been and remains a core priority. cc: Lanny A. Breuer ' Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division B. Todd Jones ' United States Attorney District of Minnesota Chair, AGAC ' MicheIe M. L.eonhart Administrator Drug Enforcement Administration ' H. Marshall Jarrett Director ' Executive Office for United States Attorneys Kevin L. Perkins ' Assistant.Director Criminal Investigative Division Federal Bureau of Investigations 1 1 1 U.S. Department of Justice Office of the. Deputy Attorney General 1 "C fr Dc.-Nt■ Annrnep Genera. .a. ingtr:»l. D.C. 2053er August 29, 2013 ' MEMORANDUM FOR ALL UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS FROM Tames M. Cole w. ^ Deputy Attorney eneral SUBJECT: Guidance Regardino.Marijuana Enforcement 1 In October 2009 and June 2011,the Department issued guidance to federal prosecutors concerning marijuana enforcement under the Controlled Substances Act(CSA). This memorandum updates that guidance in light of state ballot initiatives that legalize under state law the possession of small amounts of marijuana and provide for the regulation of marijuana production, processing, and sale. The guidance set forth herein applies to all federal enforcement activity, including civil enforcement and criminal investigations and prosecutions, concerning marijuana in all states. As the Department:noted in its previous guidance, Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. The Department of Justice is committed to enforcement of the CSA consistent with those determinations. The Department is also committed to using its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources to address the most significant threats in the most effective, consistent, and rational way. In furtherance of those objectives, as several states enacted laws relating to the use of marijuana for medical purposes,the Department in recent years has focused its efforts on certain enforcement priorities that are particularly important to the federal. government: • Preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors; 111• Preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises,gangs, and cartels; • Preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in 1 some form to other states; • Preventing state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity; 1 r Memorandum for All United States Attorneys Page 2 Subject: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement • Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana; ' • Preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use; • Preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands;and • Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property. rThese priorities will continue to guide the Department's enforcement of the CSA against marijuana-related conduct. Thus, this memorandum serves as guidance to Department attorneys and law enforcement to focus their enforcement resources and efforts, including prosecution, on persons or organizations whose conduct interferes with any one or more of these priorities, regardless of state law.' ' Outside of these enforcement priorities,the federal government has traditionally relied on states and local law enforcement agencies to address marijuana activity through enforcement of their own narcotics laws. For example,the Department of Justice has not historically devoted resources to prosecuting individuals whose conduct is limited to possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use on private property. Instead, the Department has left such lower-level ' or localized activity to state and local authorities and has stepped in to enforce the CSA only when the use,possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana has threatened to cause one of the harms identified above. ' The enactment of state laws that endeavor to authorize marijuana production, distribution, and possession by establishing a regulatory scheme for these purposes affects this ' traditional joint federal-state approach to narcotics enforcement. The Department's guidance in this memorandum rests on its expectation that states and local governments that have enacted laws authorizing marijuana-related conduct will implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public health, and other law enforcement interests. A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust controls and procedures on paper; it must also be effective in practice. Jurisdictions that have implemented systems that provide for regulation of marijuana activity 1 These enforcement priorities are listed in general terms; each encompasses a variety of conduct ' that may merit civil or criminal enforcement of the CSA. By way of example only, the Department's interest in preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors would call for enforcement not just when an individual or entity sells or transfers marijuana to a minor, but also when marijuana trafficking takes place near an area associated with minors; when marijuana or marijuana-infused products are marketed in a manner to appeal to minors; or when marijuana is being diverted, directly or indirectly, and purposefully or otherwise,to minors. r r 1 Memorandum for All United States Attorneys Page 3 Subject: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement must provide the necessary resources and demonstrate the willingness to enforce their laws and D g regulations in a manner that ensures they do not undermine federal enforcement priorities. In jurisdictions that have enacted laws legalizing marijuana in some form and that have also implemented strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems to control the cultivation, distribution, sale, and possession of marijuana, conduct in compliance with those laws and regulations is less likely to threaten the federal priorities set forth above. Indeed, a robust system may affirmatively address those priorities by, for example, implementing effective measures to prevent diversion of marijuana outside of the regulated system and to other states, prohibiting access to marijuana by minors, and replacing an illicit marijuana trade that funds criminal enterprises with a tightly regulated market in which revenues are tracked and accounted for. In those circumstances, consistent with the traditional allocation of federal-state efforts in this area,enforcement of state law by state and local law enforcement and regulatory bodies should remain the primary means of addressing marijuana-related activity. if state enforcement efforts are not sufficiently robust to protect against the harms set forth above,the federal government may seek to challenge the regulatory structure itself in addition to continuing to bring individual enforcement actions, including criminal prosecutions, focused on those harms. The Department's previous memoranda specifically addressed the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in states with laws authorizing marijuana cultivation and distribution for medical use. In those contexts, the Department advised that it likely was not an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on seriously ill individuals, or on their individual caregivers. In doing so, the previous guidance drew a distinction between the seriously ill and their caregivers, on the one hand, and large-scale, for-profit commercial enterprises,on the other, and advised that the latter continued to be appropriate targets for federal enforcement and prosecution_ In drawing this distinction, the Department relied on the common-sense judgment that the size of a marijuana operation was a reasonable proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the federal enforcement priorities set forth above. As explained above,however,both the existence of a strong and effective state regulatory system, and an operation's compliance with such a system, may allay the threat that an operation's size poses to federal enforcement interests. Accordingly, in exercising prosecutorial discretion, prosecutors should not consider the size or commercial nature of a marijuana operation alone as a proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the Department's enforcement priorities listed above. Rather, prosecutors should continue to review marijuana cases on a case-by-case basis and weigh all available information and evidence, including,but not limited to,whether the operation is demonstrably in compliance with a strong and effective state regulatory system. A marijuana operation's large scale or for-profit nature may be a relevant consideration for assessing the extent to which it undermines a particular federal enforcement priority. The primary question in all cases—and in all jurisdictions—should be whether the conduct at issue implicates one or more of the enforcement priorities listed above. 1 1 Memorandum for All United States Attorneys Page 4 Subject: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement As with the Department's previous statements on this subject,this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion. This ' memorandum does not alter in any way the Department's authority to enforce federal law, including federal laws relating to marijuana,regardless of state law. Neither the guidance herein nor any state or local law provides a legal defense to a violation of federal law, including any ' civil or criminal violation of the CSA. Even in jurisdictions with strong and effective regulatory systems, evidence that particular conduct threatens federal pr,oritics will subject that person or entity to federal enforcement action, based on the circumstances. This memorandum is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. It applies prospectively to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in future cases and does not provide defendants or subjects of enforcement action with a basis for reconsideration of any pending civil action or criminal prosecution. Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution, even in the absence of any one of the factors listed above, in particular circumstances where investigation and prosecution otherwise serves an important federal interest. cc: Mythili Raman ' Acting Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division Loretta E. Lynch United States Attorney Eastern.District of New York Chair, Attorney General's Advisory Committee ' Michele M. Leonhart Administrator ' Drug Enforcement Administration H. Marshall Jarrett Director Executive Office for United States Attorneys Ronald T. Hosko Assistant Director Criminal Investigative Division Federal Bureau of Investigation I 1 1 'PAL U.S. Department of Justice I United States Attorney Northern District of California Melinda Haag 11th Floor,Federal Building (415)436-7200 United Slates Attorney 450 Golden Cate Avenue,Box 36055 San Francisco,California 94102-3495 FAX:(4)5)436-7234 • February 1,2011 John A. Russo,Esq. Oakland City Attorney 1 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor Oakland, California 94612 Dear Mr.Russo: 1 1 write in response to your letter dated January 14,2011 seeking guidance from the Attorney General regarding the City of Oakland Medical Cannabis Cultivation Ordinance. The U.S. Department of Justice is familiar with the City's solicitation of applications for permits to operate"industrial cannabis cultivation and manufacturing facilities"pursuant to Oakland Ordinance No. 13033 (Oakland Ordinance). I have consulted with the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General about the Oakland Ordinance. This letter is written to ensure there is no confusion regarding the Department of Justice's view of such facilities. As the Department has stated on many occasions,Congress has determined that marijuana is a controlled substance. Congress placed marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act(CSA)and,as such,growing,distributing,and possessing marijuana in any 1 capacity,other than as part of a federally authorized research program, is a violation of federal law regardless of state laws permitting such activities. The prosecution of individuals and organizations involved in the trade of any illegal drugs and the disruption of drug trafficking organizations is a core priority of the Department. This core priority includes prosecution of business enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana. Accordingly,while the Department does not focus its limited resources on seriously ill individuals who use marijuana as part of a medically recommended treatment regimen in compliance with state law as stated in the October 2009 Ogden Memorandum,we will enforce the CSA vigorously against individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing and distribution activity involving marijuana,even if such activities are permitted under state law. The Department's investigative and prosecutorial resources will continue to be directed toward these objectives. Consistent with federal law, the Department maintains the authority to pursue criminal or civil actions for any CSA violations whenever the Department determines that such legal action is warranted. This includes,but is not limited to,actions to enforce the criminal provisions of the CSA such as Title 21 Section 841 making it illegal to manufacture,distribute, or possess with intent to distribute any controlled substance including marijuana;Title 21 Section 856 making it I 1 1 ' John A.Russo February 1,2011 Page 2 ' unlawful to knowingly open,lease,rent,maintain,or use property for the manufacturing,storing, or distribution of controlled substances; and Title 21 Section 846 making it illegal to conspire to commit any of the crimes set forth in the CSA. Federal money laundering and related statutes which prohibit a variety of different types of financial activity involving the movement of drug proceeds may likewise be utilized. The government may also pursue civil injunctions,and the forfeiture of drug proceeds,property traceable to such proceeds,and property used to facilitate drug violations. The Department is concerned about the Oakland Ordinance's creation of a licensing ' scheme that permits large-scale industrial marijuana cultivation and manufacturing as it authorizes conduct contrary to federal law and threatens the federal government's efforts to regulate the possession,manufacturing, and trafficking of-controlled substances. Accordingly, ' the Department is carefully considering civil and criminal legal remedies regarding those who seek to set up industrial marijuana growing warehouses in Oakland pursuant to licenses issued by the City of Oakland. Individuals who elect to operate "industrial cannabis cultivation and ' manufacturing facilities"will be doing so in violation of federal law. Others who knowingly facilitate the actions of the licensees,including property owners, landlords,and financiers should also know that their conduct violates federal law. Potential actions the Department is considering include injunctive actions to prevent cultivation and distribution of marijuana and other associated violations of the CSA; civil fines;criminal prosecution; and the forfeiture of any property used to facilitate a violation of the CSA. As the Attorney General has repeatedly stated, the Department of Justice remains firmly committed to enforcing the CSA in all states. ' I hope this letter assists the City of Oakland and potential licensees in making informed decisions regarding the cultivation,manufacture,and distribution of marijuana. Very truly yours, fir► Melinda Haag 4 United States Attorney Northern District of California ' cc: Kamala D.Harris,Attorney General of the State of California Nancy E. O'Malley,Alameda County District Attorney 1 1 1 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney District of Arizona ' Two Renaissance Square Main:(602)514-7500 40 North Central Avenue,Suite 1200 MAIN FAX:(602)514-7693 Phoenix.Arizona 85004-4408 March 23, 2011 Dear Tribal Leader; ' in keeping with my belief that frequent communication between us is key to improving public safety in Indian Country, I write to provide you with the latest updates on USA() matters and programs that bear on your community. In December, I wrote to you to discuss the transfer of juveniles to adult status in federal criminal matters, and to advise you that the law provides your tribal government with opportunity for input to the process when the juvenile suspects from your community are under the age of 15. Today I write with additional news i think will be of interest to all of you, including an update on the progress of our Tribal SAUSA program, which i introduced in an earlier letter. Tribal SAUSA Program In November, I sent you a model letter of agreement detailing the Tribal SAUSA Program, so you could evaluate it and consider whether your government might participate by nominating a tribal prosecutor or other tribal attorney. Several of you have responded in the affirmative and have requested or entered into a final letter of agreement. This office is setting up initial meetings with the tribal prosecutors thus far designated by their leaders and we anticipate this first group (of approximately six tribal prosecutors)will submit papers for the federal background check in April, with SAUSA training ' for the first class to take place in June. We will repeat the process three months later for up to six additional tribal attorneys. For those tribal leaders still considering whether to participate in the Tribal SAUSA program, l sincerely hope you will take advantage of it and then monitor the benefits to your community. If this is at all a possibility, I encourage you to contact Tribal Liaison John Tuchi at (602) 514-7543 or Deputy Tribal Liaison Mamie Hodahkwen at (602) 514-7568 to discuss it. And if you have decided to participate, please contact John or Mamie to get a final letter agreement addressed to the appropriate official. USAD Approach to Medical Marijuana in Tribal Lands Since the voters of the State of Arizona passed, by referendum, a medical marijuana regime in November, several of you have contacted us to discuss the position the United States Department of Justice will take regarding criminal prosecution of marijuana offenses in Indian Country. In October 2009, then-Deputy Attorney General David Ogden issued Department-wide policy guidance on this issue for all districts in which states had enacted laws authorizing medical marijuana cultivation, distribution, possession and use. I enclose with this letter a copy of that policy,which provides in brief that where a target is in "clear and unambiguous compliance" with the state law, federal prosecutors ought not devote scarce resources to the prosecution of program participants. I also attach guidance our 1 1 I L.,etter to Tribal Leadership ' March 23,2011 Page 2 office has recently developed to address the particular circumstance of medical marijuana on tribal ' lands. That guidance, while honoring the Department-wide policy, also recognizes the unique circumstance of Indian Country, where state law does not apply and tribal criminal law does not reach non-Indians: the guidance therefore provides that we will evaluate every case submitted from Indian Country involving marijuana on a case-by-case basis, and where sufficient evidence is developed taking the matter out of"clear and unambiguous compliance"with the state scheme, we will consider prosecution. A copy of that guidance also is attached. Should you have any questions about either of these policies or medical marijuana in general, please contact John or Mamie at the above numbers. Special Law Enforcement Commission Program Issues Another major thrust of our Public Safety Operational Plan is to promote the Special Law ' Enforcement Commission (or SLEC) Initiative to every tribe with a 63g-contract police force. •SLEC is a program administered by BIA that allows tribal police officers, upon completing required training in substantive federal law and federal criminal procedure, to act as federal agents for purposes of ' investigating and prosecuting federal felonies (including the so-called "Major Crimes") in. Indian Country. This Office aggressively promotes SLEC status because we recognize that it multiplies the number of trained officers available to properly investigate and bring federal charges against the most serious and dangerous offenders in Indian Country. SLEC also improves the training and ability of those most likely to he the first responders to serious violent crimes in Indian Country - your tribal police. ' As we have assumed an increasing role in delivering SLEC training to tribes,we also have observed practices in administering the program that needlessly inconvenience and even discourage ' otherwise qualified tribal officers and their departments from participating in SLEC. Our concern for the treatment of tribal police officers in Arizona led us to draft substantial portions of a letter from the U.S. Attorney community to Mr. Darren Cruzan, BIA's Assistant.Director for Justice Services,pointing out some of the obstacles the current system has placed before those seeking SLEC certification, and suggesting ways to make the program more officer-friendly. I have attached a copy of that letter for your review as well. We are hopeful that BiA will act on our suggestions to make obtaining SLEC a ' less frustrating and more respectful process for tribal law enforcement. I hope you find the information in this letter useful. As always, please call me or any member of ' our Indian Country Team whenever we can be of help. Sincerely, DENNIS K. BURKE United States Attorney District of Arizona. ' enclosures I United States Attorney's Office - District of Arizona Policy Guidance on Medical Marijuana in Indian Country 1 The United.States Attorney's Office for the District of Arizona remains committed to the 1 enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act, Our District policy remains one of"zero tolerance" for illegal distribution or other trafficking of any controlled substance—including marijuana—in Indian Country, no matter what the quantity. Now that the voters of Arizona have enacted by referendum a medical marijuana regime, this District will be subject to, and expected to follow , the attached policy directive from the office of the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, dated October 2009. It provides that USAOs should refrain from devoting scarce resources to the prosecution of individuals who possess or handle marijuana in clear and unambiguous compliance with a state's duly enacted medical marijuana laws. We will therefore handle prosecutions in Indian Country--as with the rest of our potential medical marijuana prosecutions on other federal land and elsewhere—in accordance with the DAG memo. This will not interfere with our commitment to prosecuting illegal drug trafficking on tribal land. We will evaluate every marijuana prosecution referred to us on a case-by- case basis to determine whether there are indicators that an individual is not in clear and unambiguous compliance with state law,which can be indicated in many ways---possessing a quantity of the drug greater than allowed by the state scheme;possession of other controlled substances in concern with marijuana; evidence of distribution for profit; or carriage of a firearm in connection with marijuana. This list is not exhaustive, and in cases where these other factors exist,we will evaluate for federal prosecution. Recognizing that in many cases, individuals may be subject to stiffer penalties for certain crimes under tribal law than in the federal court system, each tribe may also wish to work to formulate its own policies and regulations for medical marijuana cases. We are also open to further discussions on medical marijuana policy if any tribes have concerns or questions. I 1 1 1 1 • U.S. Department of Justice alt United States Attorney District of Hawaii FJKK Federal Building (808)541-2850 300 Ala Moona Blvd,Room 6-100 FAX(8O8)54/-2958 Honolulu.Homan 96850 April 12, 2011 Jodie F, Maesaka-H rat i a, Director ' Department of Public Safety State of Hawaii 919 Ala Moana Boulevard, 4' Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96814 ' Re: SENATE BILL 1458 SD2, HD2 Dear Ms. Maesaka-Hirata: ' This replies to your letter dated April 6, 2011, seeking guidance from the Attorney General and my office with ' regards to S.B. No. 1458, which if enacted, would establish in each County of this State for a five year test period at least one "medical marijuana compassion center" for the manufacture and distribution of marijuana. Under this bill, such marijuana ' distribution centers licensed by the State Department of Public Safety, would be authorized to sell marijuana within the respective counties in which they are located. In addition, the ' Bill also authorizes the sale of marijuana to other caregivers and non-resident patients visiting from other states. This letter is written to ensure there is no confusion regarding the Department of Justice' s view of such distribution centers. ' As the Department has said on many prior occasions, Congress has determined that marijuana is a controlled ' substance. Congress placed marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et. seq. ("CSA") and as such, growing, distributing, and possessing marijuana in any capacity, other than as part of a Federally authorized research ' program, is a violation of Federal law regardless of state laws permitting such activities. As a way of emphasizing the foregoing, the CSA' s penalties for felony marijuana offenses (manufacture, 1 1 Jodie F. Maesaka-}iirata April 12, 2011 Page 2 distribution, possession with intent to distribute) should be 1 considered: -1, 000 or more marijuana plants, or 1, 000 kilograms: 10 years - life imprisonment; -100 or more marijuana plants, or 100 kilograms : 5 - 40 years imprisonment; -50 marijuana plants or more, or more than 50 kilograms: up to 20 years imprisonment; and -Less than 50 marijuana plants, or less than 50 kilograms: up to 5 years imprisonment. The prosecution of individuals and organizations involved in the trade of any illegal drugs and the disruption of drug trafficking organizations is a core priority of the Department. This core priority includes prosecutions of business enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana. Accordingly, while the Department does not focus its limited resources on seriously ill individuals who use marijuana as part of a medically recommended treatment regimen in compliance with state law, we maintain the authority to enforce the CSA vigorously against individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing and distribution activity of controlled substances, including marijuana, even if such activities are permitted under state law. Consistent with federal law, the Department maintains the authority to pursue criminal or civil actions for any CSA violations whenever the Department determines that such legal action is warranted. This includes, but is not limited to, actions to enforce the criminal provisions of the CSA such as: -21 U.S.C. § 841 (making it illegal to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute any controlled substance including marijuana) ; -21 U.S.C. 5 856 (making it unlawful to knowingly open, lease, rent, maintain, or use property for the manufacturing, storing, or distribution of controlled substances) ; 1 1 1 Jodie F. Maesaka-Hirata April 12, 2011 Page 3 ' -21 U.S.C. S 860 (making it unlawful to distribute or manufacture controlled substances within 1, 000 feet of schools, colleges, playgrounds, and public housing facilities, ' and within 100 feet of any youth centers, public swimming pools, and video arcade facilities) ; ' -21 U.S.C. § 843 (making it unlawful to use any communication facility to commit felony violations of the CSA) ; and - 21 U.S.C. S 846 (making it illegal to conspire to commit any of the crimes set forth in the CSA) . In addition, Federal money laundering and related statutes which prohibit a variety of different types of financial activity involving the movement of drug proceeds may likewise be utilized. The Government may also pursue civil injunctions, and ' the forfeiture of drug proceeds, property traceable to such proceeds, and property used to facilitate drug violations. This Bill would create a State licensing scheme which ' permits the marijuana distribution center in each county to support unlimited numbers of resident caregivers and patients and non-resident patients visiting from other states. As such, this scheme would authorize large-scale marijuana manufacture and ' sales, which is contrary to Federal law and threatens the Federal government's efforts to regulate the possession, manufacturing, and trafficking of controlled substances. Accordingly, the ' Department is carefully considering civil and criminal legal remedies if this Bill is enacted and becomes law, with respect to those who seek to create such marijuana distribution centers pursuant thereto. Individuals who elect to operate such marijuana centers will be doing so in violation of Federal law. Others who knowingly facilitate and assist the actions of the licensees (including property owners, landlords, and financiers) should also know that their conduct violates Federal law. Potential actions the Department may consider include injunctive actions to prevent cultivation and distribution of marijuana and other associated violations of the CSA; civil fines; criminal ' prosecution; and the forfeiture of any property used to facilitate a violation of the CSA. As the Attorney General has repeatedly stated, the Department of Justice remains firmly committed to enforcing the CSA in all states. I I Jodie F. Maesaka-Hirata April 12, 2011 Page 4 I hope this letter assists the State of Hawaii and potential licensees in making informed decisions regarding the cultivation, manufacture, and distribution of marijuana. Very truly yours, d,e-14/(A-4-L- HENCE T. NAKAKUNI United States Attorney I I I i I I I I I I I I I ,:. ,k,,i TiF^ II..w° r ■0 US.Department of Justice "' i, r-^ ..,�Ji f' United States Attorney Eastern District of Washington Suite 340 Thomas S.Foley U.S. Courthouse (309)353-2767 P.0.Hex 3494 Fax(509)3S3-2766 Spokane,Washington 99274)494 I Honorable Christine Gregoire April 14,2011 I Washington State Governor P.O.Box 40002 Olympia,Washington 98504-0002 1 Re: Medical Marijuana Legislative Proposals Dear Honorable Governor Gregoire: IWe write in response to your letter dated April 13,2011,seeking guidance from the Attorney General and our two offices concerning the practical effect of the legislation currently being considered by the Washington State Legislature concerning medical marijuana. We II understand that the proposals being considered by the Legislature would establish a licensing scheme for marijuana growers and dispensaries,and for processors of marijuana-infused foods among other provisions. We have consulted with the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney I General about the proposed legislation. This letter is written to ensure there is no confusion regarding the Department of Justice's view of such a licensing scheme. I As the Department has stated on many occasions,Congress has determined that marijuana is a controlled substance. Congress placed marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act(CSA)and,as such,growing,distributing,and possessing marijuana in any capacity,other than as part of a federally authorized research program,is a violation of federal Ilaw regardless of state laws permitting such activities. The prosecution of individuals and organizations involved in the trade of any illegal drugs I and the disruption of drug trafficking organizations is a core priority of the Department. This core priority includes prosecution of business enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana. Accordingly,while the Department does not focus its limited resources on seriously I ill individuals who use marijuana as part of a medically recommended treatment regimen in compliance with state law as stated in the October 2009 Ogden Memorandum,we maintain the authority to enforce the CSA vigorously against individuals and organizations that participate in I unlawful manufacturing and distribution activity involving marijuana,even if such activities are permitted under state law. The Department's investigative and prosecutorial resources will continue to be directed toward these objectives. I I I 1 Honorable Christine Gregoire April 14, 2011 Page 2 Consistent with federal law,the Department maintains the authority to pursue criminal or I civil actions for any CSA violations whenever the Department determines that such legal action is warranted. This includes,but is not limited to, actions to enforce the criminal provisions of the CSA such as: ' -21 U.S.C. §841 (making it illegal to manufacture,distribute,or possess with intent to distribute any controlled substance including marijuana); -21 U.S.C. § 856(making it unlawful to knowingly open, lease, rent,maintain,or use property for the manufacturing,storing, or distribution of controlled substances); -21 U.S.C. § 860(making it unlawful to distribute or manufacture controlled substances within 1,000 feet of schools,colleges, playgrounds,and public housing facilities,and within 100 feet of any youth centers,public swimming pools,and video arcade faci lities); -21 U,S.C. § 843(making it unlawful to use any communication facility to commit felony violations of the CSA);and -21 U.S.C_§ 846(making it illegal to conspire to commit any of the crimes set forth in the CSA). In addition, Federal money laundering and related statutes which prohibit a variety of different types of financial activity involving the movement of drug proceeds may likewise be utilized. The Government may also pursue civil injunctions,and the forfeiture of drug proceeds,property traceable to such proceeds,and property used to facilitate drug violations. The Washington legislative proposals will create a licensing scheme that permits I large-scale marijuana cultivation and distribution. This would authorize conduct contrary to federal law and thus, would undermine the federal government's efforts to regulate the possession,manufacturing, and trafficking of controlled substances. Accordingly,the Department could consider civil and criminal legal remedies regarding those who set up marijuana growing facilities and dispensaries as they will be doing so in violation of federal law. Others who knowingly facilitate the actions of the licensees,including property owners, landlords,and financiers should also know that their conduct violates federal law. In addition, state employees who conducted activities mandated by the Washington legislative proposals would not be immune,from liability under the CSA. Potential actions the Department could consider include injunctive actions to prevent cultivation and distribution of marijuana.and other associated violations of the CSA;civil fines; criminal prosecution; and the forfeiture of any I I I 1 1 Honorable Christine Gregoire April 14,2011 Page 3 property used to facilitate a violation of the CSA. As the Attorney General has repeatedly stated, the Department of Justice remains firmly committed to enforcing the CSA in all states. We hope this letter assists the State of Washington and potential licensees in making informed decisions regarding the cultivation,manufacture,and distribution of marijuana. -.Very truly yours, iL AD t - J (5—A-1>. e Durican Michael C.Ormsby Unite States Attorney United States Attorney Western District of Washington Eastern District of Washington 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 4 I U.S. Department of Justice I 4 United States Attorney District of Montana I MICHAEL W.COTTER 901 Front Street,Suite 1100 406-407-0120 I United Stele Attorney Helena,Montana 60626 April 20, 2011 Senator Jim Peterson,Senate President 1 Representative Mike Milburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives I PO lox 200500 Helena, Montana 59620-0500 Gentlemen: I This acknowledges receipt of your letter dated April 18, 2011, requesting Department of Justice guidance concerning a proposed regulatory scheme by the Montana Legislature for the use of I marijuana and marijuana infused products for therapeutic purposes. While the Department of Justice has not reviewed the specific legislative proposal for licensing and regulating medical marijuana that you indicate is being finalized,the Department has stated on many occasions that I Congress placed marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act(CSA)and, as such, growing, distributing, and possessing marijuana in any capacity,other than as part of a federally authorized research program, is a violation of federal law regardless of state laws that purport to permit such activities. I The prosecution of individuals and organizations involved in the trade of any illegal drugs and the disruption of drug trafficking organizations is a core priority of the Department. This I core priority includes prosecution of business enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana. While the Department generally does not focus its limited resources on seriously ill individuals who use marijuana as part of a medically recommended treatment regimen consistent I with applicable state law, as stated in the October 2009 Ogden Memorandum, we maintain the authority to enforce the CSA against individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing and distribution activity involving marijuana,even if such activities are permitted I under state law. The Department's investigative and prosecutorial resources will continue to be directed toward these objectives. I I I I 1 April 20,2011 Page 2 Hopefully this letter assists the Montana Legislature in making its decisions regarding the cultivation, manufacture and distribution of marijuana. Sincerely, • ►r. ' Michael W. Cotter United States Attorney 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 I I _� 1,�t$76 x; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF COLORADO John W. Suthers I April 26, 2011 I Governor John Hickenlooper I Colorado State Capitol Members of the Colorado General Assembly I Colorado State Capitol Re: Federal Enforcement of Marijuana Laws I Dear Governor Hickenlooper and Members of the Colorado General Assembly: I feel compelled to advise you of recent developments in regard to the federal 1 law enforcement position regarding medical marijuana. As you are aware, in October of 2009 the U.S. Department of Justice issued a I memo to federal law enforcement (the "Ogden memo") indicating that, while manufacturing, possession and distribution of marijuana was a violation of federal law, I the department would not employ its resources to pursue individuals acting in strict compliance with state medical marijuana laws. Since the Ogden memo was issued several states, including Colorado, have I g g enacted medical marijuana regulatory schemes that have resulted in explosive growth in the number of persons claiming to be using marijuana for medical purposes. In I Colorado for example, there are now approximately 123,000 registered medical marijuana patients. As a result, the l)OJ, through various United States Attorneys, has responded to inquiries in order to clarify the scope of the Ogden memo. 1 am enclosing I copies of several such letters, including a letter to me from John Walsh, the United States Attorney for the District of Colorado. These letters indicate that while the IDepartment of Justice will not focus its limited resources on seriously ill individuals who use marijuana as part of a medically recommended treatment regimen in compliance with state law, it does maintain its full authority to vigorously enforce , federal law against individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing and distribution activity involving marijuana, even if such activities are permitted under state law. Of great concern is the fact that some of the letters make clear the U.S. Attorneys do not consider state employees who conduct activities under I state medical marijuana laws to be immune from liability under federal law. 1 State Services Building • 1525 Sherman Street-7th Floor• Denver,Colorado 80203 Phone(303)866-3557 • FAX(303)866-4745 I I Governor Ilickenlooper, General Assembly April 26, 2011 Page 2 The letter from U.S. Attorney Walsh, in addition to sharing the viewpoint of the other U.S. Attorneys about the legality of grow operations and dispensaries, elaborates on his specific concerns regarding Colorado House Bill 1043, currently pending in the rGeneral Assembly. Because this clarification of the Ogden memo raises significant issues regarding the medical marijuana regulatory scheme enacted by the Colorado General Assembly in 2010 (which has resulted in widespread manufacture and distribution of medical marijuana in Colorado) and issues regarding currently pending legislation, I wanted to ' ensure that you were made aware of these developments as soon as possible. ISincerely, I ORN W. SUFI-1FM ' Colorado Attorney General Enclosures c: R.oxy Huber, Executive Director, Department of Revenue Dr. Christopher E. Iirbina, Executive Director, CDPI-IE I I I I I I I I U.S.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1 '_ y , :��Y�' John F. Walsh 111 United States Attorney District of Colorado 1225 Seventeenth Street,Suite 700 303-454-0100 Seventeenth Street Plaza (FAX) 303-454-0400 Denver.Colorado 80202 April 26,2011 1 1 John Suthers Attorney General I State of Colorado 1525 Sherman St., 7`h Floor Denver, CO 80203 I Dear Attorney General Slithers: I am writing in response to your request for clarification of the position of the U.S. I Department of Justice(the"Department")with respect to activities that would be licensed or otherwise permitted under the terms of pending House Bill 1043 in the Colorado General Assembly. 1 have consulted with the Attorney General of the United States and the Deputy Attorney General of the United States about this bill,and write to ensure that there is no confusion as to the Department's views on such activities. As the Department has noted on many prior occasions,the Congress of the United States 1 has determined that marijuana is a controlled substance, and has placed marijuana on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act(CSA). Federal law under Title 21 of the United States Code, Section 841,prohibits the manufacture, distribution or possession with intent to distribute any I controlled substance,including marijuana,except as provided under the strict control provisions of the CSA. Title 21, Section 856 makes it a federal crime to lease,rent or maintain a place for the purpose of manufacturing,distributing or using a controlled substance. Title 21, Section 846 I makes it a federal crime to conspire to commit that crime,or any other crime under the CSA. Title 18, Section 2 makes it a federal crime to aid and abet the commission of a federal crime. Moreover,federal anti-money laundering statutes,including Title 18, Section 1956,make illegal I certain financial transactions designed to promote illegal activities,including drug trafficking,or to conceal or disguise the source of the proceeds of that illegal activity. Title 18, Section 1957, makes it illegal to engage in a financial transaction involving more than$10,000 in criminal I proceeds. In October 2009,the Department issued guidance(the"Ogden Memo")to U.S. Attorneys I around the country in states with laws authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes . 1 I I I John Suthers 1 April 26,2011 Page 2, Iunder state law. At the time the Ogden Memo issued, Colorado law,and specifically, Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution,authorized the possession of only very limited amounts of marijuana for medical purposes by individuals with serious illnesses and those who I care for them.' As reiterated in the Ogden memo,the prosecution of individuals and organizations involved in the trade of any illegal drugs and the disruption of drug trafficking organizations is a core priority of the Department. This core priority includes prosecution of I business enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana. Accordingly,while the Department does not focus its limited resources on seriously ill individuals who use marijuana as part of a medically recommended treatment regimen in compliance with state law as stated in the I Ogden Memo,we maintain the authority to enforce the CSA vigorously against individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing and distribution activity involving marijuana,even if such activities are permitted under state law. The Department's investigative and prosecutorial resources will continue to be directed toward these objectives. IIt is well settled that a State cannot authorize violations of federal law. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado recently reaffirmed this fundamental principle of our I federal constitutional system in United States v. Bartkowicz,No. 10-cr-00118-PAB (D. Colo. 2010),when it held that Colorado state law on medical marijuana does not and cannot alter • federal law's prohibition on the manufacture, distribution or possession of marijuana,or provide a defense to prosecution under federal law for such activities. The provisions of Colorado House Bill 1043,if enacted, would permit under state law I conduct that is contrary to federal law,and would threaten the ability of the United States government to regulate possession,manufacturing and trafficking in controlled substances, including marijuana. First,provisions of a proposed medical marijuana investment fund I amendment to H.B. 1043,which ultimately did not pass in the Colorado House but which apparently may be reintroduced as an amendment in.the Colorado Senate, appear to contemplate that the State of Colorado would license a marijuana investment fund or funds under which both Colorado and out-of-state investors would invest in commercial marijuana operations. The I Department would consider civil and criminal legal remedies regarding those who invest in the production of marijuana, which is in violation of federal law, even if the investment is made in a state-licensed fund of the kind proposed. ISecond,the terms of H.13. 1043 would authorize Colorado state licensing of"medical marijuana infused product"facilities with up to 500 marijuana plants,with the possibility of I licensing even larger facilities, with no stated number limit,with a state-granted waiver based upon consideration of broad factors such as"business need." Similarly, the Department would consider civil actions and criminal prosecution regarding those who set up marijuana growing facilities and dispensaries,as well as property owners, as they will be acting in violation of I federal law. I ' As passed by Colorado voters in 2000,Amendment 20 made lawful under Colorado law the possession by a patient or caregiver of patient of "[nit)more than two ounces of a useable form of marijuana or no more than six marijuana plants with three or fewer being mature,flowering plants producing a usable form of marijuana." Colo. I Const,art.XVIII, § 14(4)(a). Within these limits,the Amendment authorized a medical marijuana"affirmative defense"to state criminal prosecution for possession of marijuana. Colo, Const. art.XVIII,§ I4(2)(a),(b). I I John Suthers April 26, 2011 Page 3 1 As the Attorney General has repeatedly stated,the Department of Justice remains firmly r committed to enforcing the federal law and the Controlled Substances Act in all states. Thus, if the provisions of H.B. 1043 are enacted and become law,the Department will continue to carefully consider all appropriate civil and criminal legal remedies to prevent manufacture and distribution of marijuana and other associated violations of federal law,including injunctive actions; civil penalties; criminal prosecution; and the forfeiture of any property used to facilitate a violation of federal law,including the Controlled Substances Act. I hope this letter provides the clarification you have requested,and assists the State of I Colorado and its potential licensees in making informed decisions regarding the cultivation, manufacture, and distribution of marijuana, as well as related financial transactions. AO your fif 1 HN F. WALSH nited States Attorney District of Colorado 1 cc: Eric Holder,Attorney General of the United States James Cole,Deputy Attorney General of the United States I i 1 1 1 1 1 I " 'f"; U.S. Department of Justice • United States Attorney District of Rhode Island 1 Fleet Center (401)709-5000 50 Kennedy Plaza,8th Floor FAX(401)709-5001 Providence,Rhode Island 02903 i I April 29, 2011 1 BY HAND The Honorable Lincoln D. Chafee Governor of the State of Rhode Island 222 State House Providence, RI 02903-1196 iRe: Medical Marijuana Dear Governor Chafee: I write regarding the Rhode Island Department of Health' s recent notification to three Rhode Island entities, the Thomas C. Slater Compassion Center, Inc. , the Summit Medical Compassion Center, Inc. , and the Greenleaf Compassionate Care Center, Inc. , that their applications to operate medical marijuana "compassion centers" have been approved pursuant to the Edward 0. Hawkins and Thomas C. Slater Medical Marijuana Act, R. I.G.L. 21-28 . 6-1, et seq. (the Act) . It is my understanding that each of these three entities now await the issuance of a "registration certificate" by the Department of Health authorizing their operation. i now write to ensure that there is no confusion regarding the 11 United States Department of Justice' s view of state-sanctioned schemes that purport to regulate the manufacture and distribution of medical marijuana. ' As the Department has stated on many occasions, Congress has determined that marijuana is a controlled substance. Congress placed marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and, as such, growing, distributing, and possessing marijuana in any capacity, other than as part of a federally authorized research program, is a violation of federal law regardless of state laws permitting such activities. The prosecution of individuals and organizations involved in the trade of any illegal drugs and the disruption of drug trafficking II organizations is a core priority of the Department of Justice. This core priority includes the prosecution of business enterprises that I 1 The Honorable Lincoln D. Chafee -2 - April 29, 2011 unlawfully market and sell marijuana. Accordingly, while the Department of Justice does not focus its limited resources on seriously ill individuals who use marijuana as part of a medically recommended treatment regimen in compliance with state law as stated in the October 2009 Memorandum of Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, the Department of Justice maintains the authority to enforce the CSA vigorously against individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing and distribution activity involving marijuana, even if such activities are permitted under state law. The Department' s investigative and prosecutorial resources will continue to be directed toward these objectives. 1 Consistent with federal law, the Department of Justice maintains 1 the authority to pursue criminal and/or civil actions for any CSA violations whenever the Department determines that such legal action is warranted. This includes, but is not limited to, actions to ' enforce the criminal provisions of the CSA, such as: - 21 U.S.C. § 841 (making it illegal to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute any controlled substance, including marijuana) ; - 21 U.S.C. § 856 (making it unlawful to knowingly open, lease, rent, maintain, or use property for the manufacturing, storing, or distribution of controlled substances) ; -• 21 U.S .C. § 860 (making it unlawful to distribute or manufacture controlled substances within 1, 000 feet of schools, colleges, playgrounds, and public housing facilities, and within 100 feet of any youth centers, public , swimming pools, and video arcade facilities) ; - 21 U.S.C. § 843 (making it unlawful to use any communication facility to commit felony violations of the CSA) ; and - 21 U.S.C. § 846 (making it illegal to conspire to commit any of the crimes set forth in the CSA) . In addition, federal money laundering and related statutes which prohibit a variety of different types of financial activity involving the movement of drug proceeds may likewise be utilized. The government may also pursue civil injunctions, and the forfeiture of drug proceeds, property traceable to such proceeds, and property used to facilitate drug violations. The Act, the registration scheme it purports to authorize, and the anticipated operation of the three centers appear to permit large- I 1 The Honorable Lincoln D. Chafee -3.. April 29, 2011 II 1 li scale marijuana cultivation and distribution. Such conduct is contrary to federal law and thus, undermines the federal government ' s efforts to regulate the possession, manufacturing, and trafficking of li controlled substances. Accordingly, the Department of Justice could consider civil and criminal legal remedies against those individuals and entities who set up marijuana growing facilities and dispensaries as such actions are in violation of federal law. Others who knowingly facilitate those individuals and entities who set up marijuana growing facilities and dispensaries, including property owners, landlords, and financiers, should also know that their conduct violates federal law. Potential actions the Department of Justice could consider include injunctive actions to prevent cultivation and distribution of marijuana and other associated violations of the CSA; civil fines; criminal prosecution; seizure of the controlled substances and seizure and forfeiture of any personal and real property used to facilitate the production and distribution of controlled substances, or that is derived from a violation of the CSR. As the Attorney General of the United States has repeatedly stated, the Department of Justice remains firmly committed to enforcing the CSA in all states. ill I hope this letter provides clarification and assists the State of Rhode Island and its potential licensees in making informed decisions regarding the cultivation, manufacture, and distribution of marijuana, as well as related financial transactions. Sincere i 400.177400461,ill Peter F. Neronha United States Attorney cc: Michael Fine, M.D. , Interim Director, Rhode Island Department of Health Gerald J. McGraw, Jr. , Thomas C. Slater Compassion Center, Inc. Alan B. Weinberg, M.D. , Summit Medical Compassion Center, Inc. Seth Bock, Greenleaf Compassionate Care Center, Inc. IIII I I >,;,-, Y U.S. Department of Justice I��" s ��M ;r,; / United States Attorney 'a '-., 4 District ofArizona I Two Renaissance Square Again: (602)514-7500 I 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Main FAX: (602)514-7693 Phoenix,Arizona 85004-9908 May2, 201l I Will Humble III Director Arizona Department of Health Services 150 N. 18th Avenue I Phoenix,Arizona 85007 Re:Arizona Medical Marijuana Program I Dear Mr. Humble: on April 13, 2011 the Arizona Department of Health Services filed rules I I understand that p p implementing the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA), passed by Arizona voters on November 2, 2010. The Department of Health.Services rules create a regulatory scheme for the distribution of marijuana for medical use, including a system for approving, renewing, and revoking registration for qualifying patients, care givers,nonprofit dispensaries, and dispensary agents. I am writing this letter in response to numerous inquiries and to ensure there is no confusion regarding the Department of Justice's view of such a regulatory scheme. The Department has advised consistently that Congress has determined that marijuana is a controlled I substance, placing it in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). That means growing, distributing,and possessing marijuana in any capacity,other than as part of a federally authorized research program,is a violation of federal law regardless of state laws that purport to permit such activities. As has I been the case for decades,the prosecution of individuals and organizations involved in the trade of illegal drugs and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks, is a core priority of the Department of Justice. The United States Attorney's Office for the District of Arizona("the USAO")will I continue to vigorously prosecute individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing, distribution and marketing activity involving marijuana,even if such activities are permitted under state law. An October,2009,. memorandum from then-Deputy Attorney Genera]Ogden provided guidance that, I in districts where a state had enacted medical marijuana programs, USAOs ought not focus their limited resources on those seriously ill individuals who use marijuana as part of a medically recommended treatment regimen and are in clear and unambiguous compliance with such state laws.And,as has been our policy, this USA()will continue to follow that guidance. The public should understand,however,that even clear and unambiguous compliance with AMMA does not render possession or distribution of marijuana lawful under federal statute. Moreover,the CSA may be vigorously enforced against those individuals and entities who operate I large marijuana production facilities. Individuals and organizations—including property owners,landlords, I Letter to Director Will Humble IMay 2, 2011 Page 2 1 and financiers--that knowingly facilitate the actions of traffickers also should know that compliance with AMMA will not protect them from federal criminal prosecution, asset forfeiture and other civil penalties. I This compliance with Arizona laws and regulations does not provide a safe harbor, nor immunity from federal prosecution. 1 The USAO also has received inquiries about our approach to AMMA in Indian Country, which comprises nearly one third of the land and five percent of the population of Arizona,and in which state law —including AMMA—is largely inapplicable. The USAO currently has exclusive felony jurisdiction over Idrug trafficking offenses in Indian. Country. Individuals or organizations that grow, distribute or possess marijuana on federal or tribal lands will do so in violation of federal law, and may be subject to federal prosecution, no matter what the quantity of marijuana. The USA() will continue to evaluate marijuana I prosecutions in Indian. Country and on federal lands on a case-by-case basis. Individuals possessing or trafficking marijuana in Indian Country also may be subject to tribal penalties. 1 I hope that this letter assists the Department of Health Services and potential registrants in making informed choices regarding the possession, cultivation, manufacturing, and distribution of medical marijuana. Iincerely you I .. k ,„ , , DENNIS K. BURKE I United States Attorney District of Arizona I I 1 I I I I I L.S. Department of Justice Unircd States Attorney District of ilerrnort Liebe,:SY43tr3 C{`G✓rf:■L'sf::n;:r'ederL t li117.V1n4; NA,P i;.cr ox S76 0(),?)S'Sr•e- ?: erdri r.'tQr., r'rt,or, 34∎12• ;7f rcri (Yr;I:4143; May 3,2011 Commissioner Keith W. Flynn Vemmont Department of Public Safety 103 South Main Street Waterbury. VT'05671-0001 Dear Commissioner Flynn: I am writing in response to Deputy Commissioner Rosemary Gretkowski's request for information about the Department of Justice's position on marijuana dispensary legislation, specifically,on S. 17,a bill that would establish registered marijuana dispensaries in Vermont. The purpose of this le ter is to ensure there is no confusion regarding the Department of Justice's view of such state-authorized marijuana dispensary operations. As the Department has stated on many occasions, Congress has determined that marijuana is a controlled substance. Congress placed marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and, as such, growing,distributing,and possessing marijuana in any capacity,other than as part of a federally authorized research program, is a violation of federal law regardless of state laws purporting to permit such activities. The prosecution of individuals and organizations involved in the trade of any illegal drugs and the disruption of drug trafficking organizations is a core priority of the Department, This core priority includes prosecution of business enterprises that unlawfully cultivate and sell marijuana. Accordingly,while the Department does not focus its limited resources on seriously ill individuals who use marijuana as part of a medically recommended treatment regimen in compliance with state law as stated in the October 2009 Ogden Memorandum, we will enforce the CSA vigorously against individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing and distribution activity involving marijuana, even if such activities are permitted tinder state law. The Department's ent's investigative and prosecutorial resources will continue to be directed toward these objectives. Consistent with federal law, the Department maintains the authority to pursue criminal or civil actions for any CSA violations whenever the Department determines that such legal action is warranted. This includes, but is not limited to, actions to enforce the criminal provisions of the CSA such as Title 21,United States Code, Section 841, making it illegal to manufacture, distribute,or possess with intent to distribute any controlled substance including marijuana;"Title 21,United States Code, Section 856,making ii unlawful to knowingly open, lease, rent, 1 maintain,or use property for the manufacturing,storing,or distribution of controlled substances; ' and Title 21, United States Code, Section 846, making it illegal to conspire to commit any of the crimes set forth in the GSA. Federal money laundering and related statutes which prohibit a variety of different types of financial activity involving the movement of drug proceeds may likewise be utilized. The government may also pursue civil injunctions, and the forfeiture of drug proceeds, property traceable to such proceeds,and property used to facilitate drug violations. ' is concerned about the significant marijuana cultivation and The Department i, on g � manufacturing operation contemplated in S. 17 as it would involve conduct contrary to federal law and threatens the federal government's efforts to regulate the possession, manufacturing, and trafficking of controlled substances, Accordingly, the Department will carefully consider legal remedies against those who facilitate or operate marijuana dispensaries or marijuana distribution ior production as contemplated by S. 17, should that measure become law. Individuals who elect to operate marijuana cultivation facilities will be doing so in violation of federal law. Others who knowingly facilitate such industrial cultivation activities,including property owners, ' landlords, and financiers, should also know that their conduct violates federal law. Potential actions the Department may consider include injunctive actions to prevent cultivation and distribution of marijuana and other associated violations of the CSA; civil fines;criminal prosecution;and the forfeiture of any property used to facilitate a violation of the CSA. As the Attorney General has repeatedly stated; the Department of Justice remains firmly committed to enforcing the CSA in all states. ' I hope this letter assists you in making informed decisions regarding proposed marijuana dispensary legislation such as S. 17. 1 Very truly rs, \--.> 4/7 1 TRISTRAM 3. COFFIN United States Attorney District of Vermont 1 I 1 i U - ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 33 CAPITOL STREET CONCORD,NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301-6397 I MICHAEL A.DELANEY .0 7 "a: ATTORNEY GENERAL �,� °' �dP May 10,2011 Honorable Jeb Bradley I • Y State House Room 302 107 North Main Street Concord,NH 03301 Re: House Bill 442;relative to the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes Dear Senator Bradley: 0 I am writing to voice my opposition to House Bill 442,relative to medical marijuana, , including the floor amendment that is currently being considered by the Senate. I am firmly opposed to House Bill 442 because it will authorize the establishment of state-sanctioned operations for the cultivation and distribution of marijuana—operations that constitute criminal violations under the federal law. While the US Department of Justice has taken the position that it will not focus enforcement efforts on seriously ill individuals who use marijuana as part of a medically recommended treatment program consistent with applicable state laws,it has stated that it will enforce the laws against individuals and organizations that participate in the business of manufacturing and distributing marijuana, even if permissible under state law. Attached is a letter from John Kacavas,U.S.Attorney for the District of New Hampshire,confirming that position. By enacting this bill, the legislature would be giving individuals and state employees false assurance that they will be immune from criminal liability for their activities under the law. Above and beyond the illegality of the proposed system under federal law, I have a number of other concerns. First,the bill does not prohibit alternative treatment centers from acquiring marijuana from any source, including illegal drug dealers within and without the state. It is simply bad policy to allow state-sanctioned services to be founded on the procurement of contraband. Another potential source of marijuana is out-of-state individuals and entities who are authorized to cultivate medical marijuana in their home state. By allowing that,this state would be encouraging interstate distribution of a controlled drug, which is a clear violation of the federal law. The bill creates a concern for law enforcement. The bill provides for immunity from arrest for any qualified patient or caregiver who is in possession of less than one-half ounce of I Telephone 603-271-3658 • FAX 603-271-2110 • TDD Access:Relay NR 1-800-735-2964 lir ,_ . , . marijuana. However,there is no requirement that marijuana dispensed by the treatment center be retained in its original packaging. Thus, law enforcement has no ability to determine if, in fact, that substance was lawfully obtained. Further,the bill appears to permit designated caregivers to service an unlimited number of patients. This will create confusion as to bow much marijuana a caregiver will lawfully be allowed to possess at any one time. Also, it is unknown how much marijuana any alternative treatment center will be allowed to lawfully acquire, cultivate,possess and distribute since it is unknown how many individuals will be designated as registered qualifying patients. Given the experiences of other states that have attempted to implement similar laws,it is clear that a well-established regulatory system is critical to maintaining control over marijuana dispensaries. Despite the bill's clear statement that no state funds shall be used to implement or administer the chapter,the Department of Health and Human Services will, by necessity,be required to expend time and resources to develop that system before any alternative treatment centers are certified. The Department will have to promulgate rules, create a system for issuing the various identification cards, and review applications, among other things. My Office will be required to expend resources to provide legal counsel to the Department. Yet,there is no fiscal note attached to the bill. I have grave concerns about the adequacy of the regulatory system that will be created given the significant financials constraints the Department is experiencing. Finally,the amendment calls for the Department of Health and Human Services to lower its standards for certification of an additional treatment center if, after two years,the registered alternative treatment centers in operation are not sufficient to ensure access of marijuana to registered qualifying patients. In that instance,the bill mandates the Department to issue a registration certificate to the applicant which"achieves the highest score,"regardless of whether the Department considers that score sufficient. For all these reasons, I urge you to vote House Bill 442 inexpedient to legislate. Sincerely, Om . . . AL 1 Michael A. Delan Attorney General #610844 1 I I/ I i , r-Z: I .,. I: , U.S.Department of Justice I . John P.Kacavas United States Attorney ∎-c. District ofNew Hampshire I Federal Building Phone 603-223-1332 53 Pleasant Street Fax 603-226-7789 Concord New Hampshire 03301 I May 10,2011 0 1 Attorney General Michael A.Delaney New Hampshire Department of Justice - 0 33 Capitol Street Concord,New Hampshire 03301-6397 In re:House Bill 442 Dear Attorney General Delaney: I am writing in response to your request for guidance on"the position of the United States Department of Justice[the Department]as it,relates to enforcement of 21 U.S.C. Chapter 13,the Uniform Controlled Substances Act,against state-established treatment centers that would. dispense,produce and process marijuana for medical use by qualifying patients." This letter will set forth the Department's view of state-sanctioned schemes that purport to regulate the manufacture and distribution of medical marijuana. 1 As you know, Congress has determined that marijuana is a controlled substance and,as such,has placed it in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act(CSA). Accordingly,growing, distributing and possessing marijuana in any capacity,other than as part of a federally authorized 1 research program,is a violation of federal law despite state laws permitting such activities. . The disruption of drug trafficking organizations and the prosecution of individuals and organizations involved in the trade of any illegal drugs is a core priority of the Department. This core priority includes the prosecution of business enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana. As I publicly stated last year,while my office will not focus its limited resources,on seriously ill individuals who use marijuana as part of a medically recommended treatment regimen that complies with state law,the Department maintains the authority to enforce the CSA vigorously against organizations and individuals who unlawfully manufacture and distribute 1 marijuana,even if such activities are permitted under state law. The Department's investigative and prosecutorial resources will continue to be directed toward these objectives. I 1 1 Attorney General Michael A.Delaney May 10,2011 Page 2 Consistent with federal law,the Department maintains the authority to pursue criminal ' and/or civil actions for any CSA violation when the Department determines that legal action is warranted. This includes,but is not limited to,actions to enforce the criminal provisions of the CSA,such as: -21 U.S.C. § 841 (making it illegal to manufacture,distribute,or possess with intent to distribute any controlled substance,including marijuana); I -21 U.S.C. § 856(making it unlawful to knowingly open,lease,rent,maintain,.or use property for the manufacturing,storing,or distribution of controlled substances); -21 U.S. C. § 860(making it unlawful to distribute or manufacture controlled ' substances within 1,000 feet of schools,colleges,playgrounds and public housing facilities,and within 100 feet of any youth centers,public swimming pools, and video arcade facilities); ' -21 U.S.C. § 843 (making it unlawful to use any communication facility to commit felony violations of the CSA);and -21 U.S.C. § 846(making it illegal to conspire to commit any of the crimes set forth in the CSA). Additionally,federal money laundering and related statutes that prohibit financial activities that facilitate the movement of drug proceeds may also be utilized. The government may also pursue civil injunctions and the forfeiture of drug proceeds,property traceable to such proceeds,and property used to facilitate drug violations. As I understand it,House Bill 442 would authorize the New Hampshire Department of ' Health and Hinman Services(DHHS)to register an unlimited number of treatment centers to cultivate,process and dispense marijuana. Accordingly,the legislation appears to permit large- scale marijuana cultivation and distribution,which is contrary to federal law and undermines the federal government's efforts to regulate the possession,manufacturing,and trafficking of controlled substances. Accordingly,the Department could consider civil and criminal legal remedies against those entities and individuals who establish marijuana growing facilities and dispensaries,as such actions constitute a violation of federal law. Others,including property ' owners,landlords,and financiers who knowingly assist those entities and individuals should be aware that their conduct also violates federal law. Consequently,the Department could consider ' pursuing injunctive actions to prevent cultivation and distribution of marijuana and other associated violations of the CSA,civil fines,criminal prosecutions,seizure of the controlled substances,and seizure and forfeiture of any personal and real property used to facilitate the 1 • t I . 1 y c Attorney General Michael A.Delaney I 1 May 10,2011 Page 3 1 production and distribution of controlled substances,or that is derived from a violation of the CSA. As the Attorney General of the United States has stated repeatedly,the Department remains firmly committed to enforcing the CSA in all states. I hope you find this letter responsive to your request regarding the Department's position on the state-sanctioned cultivation,manufacture and distribution of marijuana,as well as related financial transactions. 1 Sincerely, ohn P.Kacavas 1 JPK/tal f I r 1 1 MAY-18-2011 1413 P.01 � • I A,A14, v r- I .rd.A taxaa.lat trl a1 iu1t'a(lee .. United states Attorney District of Maine 10D Middle Street (200 730-3257 Floor,Fns'Inver 77-1(207)780,3060 Penland.alE 174101 Fax(2077 7.lO-.i:(Ji1 t'W t'KShcli pr+('ir15F'mr May 16,2011 Hon. Earle L.McCormick Maine State Senate 100 State House Station Augusta,ME 04333-0100 I Ion. Meredith N. Strang Burgess Maine House of Representatives " . 100 State 1-I'ougO Stati.vfi Augusta,ME 04333-0100 Re: Medical Mvlarijuana,A,ct Legislation Dear Senator McCormick and Representative Strang Burgess: I am in receipt of your letter inquiring whether this office has concerns about Iegislat:on to amend Maine's Medical Marijuana Act(MMA) now pending heft e the 125 Legislatu�ru and. your Committee on Health and 1-Tuman.Services. I write to ensure that there is no confusion regarding the United States Department of Justice's view on such legislative proposals. We can neither endorse nor comment on the specifics of the MlvMA or the proposed amendments other than to advise you those activities by users (patients), caregivers and dispensaries remain illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act(GSA), This office has consulted with leadership offices within the Department of Justice to assure that our response is consistent with replies of United States Attorneys in other districts. Congress has determined that marijuana is a controlled substance and has placed marijuana in Schedule I of the GSA. As stich, growing, distributing, and possessing marijuana in any capacity,other than as part of a federally authorized research program, is a violation of federal law regardless of state laws permitting such activities. The prosecution of individuals and organizations involved in the trade of any illegal drugs and the disruption of drug trafficking organizations are core priorities of the Department. This priority includes prosecution of individuals and enterprises that unlawfully cultivate and sell marijuana. Accordingly, while the Department does not focus its limited resources on seriously ill individuals who use marijuana as part of a medically recommended treatment regimen in compliance with state law as stated in the October 2009 Memorandum by then Deputy Attorney General David Ogden,we will enforce the CSA vigorously against individuals and organizations 'tlY �3 ntt MY-18-2011 14:14 P.01 May 16, 2011 Hon. Earle M.McCormick Hon.Meredith N. Strang Burgess Page 2 that participate in unlawful manufacturing and distribution activity involving marijuana, even if such activities are permitted under state law. The Department's investigative and prosecutorial resources will continue to be directed toward these objectives. It is well settled that no state can authorize violations of federal law. Claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions or purposes of those federal laws. Consistent with federal law,the Department maintains the authority to pursue nrim.inal_or civil acti tie fvr any CSA violations whenever it is determined that such legal action is• wan-anted. This includes, but is not limited to, actions regarding the manufacturing, distribution. or possession with intent to distribute any controlled substance including marijuana, as well as conduct to knowingly open,lease, rent, maintain,or use property for the manufacturing,storing, or distribution of controlled substances; and, conduct to conspire to commit any of the crimes set forth io the CSA. Federal money laundering and.related statutes, which prohibit a variety of different types of financial activity involving the movement of drug proceeds,may likewise be utilized The government may also pursue civil injunctions, and the forfeiture of drug proceeds, properly traceable to such proceeds, and property used to facilitate drug violations. The Depa-tment is concerned about recent efforts to amend Maine's Medical Marijuana Act,as-the legislation involves conduct contrary tcs federal law and threatens the federal government's efforts to regulate controlled substances. The Department of Justice remains firmly committed to enforcing the CSA in all states. Any decision to pursue civil or criminal remedies will be made on a case by case basis and using the prosecutorial discretion vested in this office. I hope this letter provides clarification and assists the State of Maine to make informed decisions regarding legislative efforts on the subject of medical marijuana. • Very truly yours, Thomas E. Delahanty Tt t r7 c,J TED/br United States Attorney cc: William J. Schneider, Attorney General• Orbeton