Jim Finnel
Fallen Cannabis Warrior & Ex News Moderator
The members of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors don't like the fact that voters legalized medical marijuana. They've made that clear in the 14-plus years since Prop. 215 was passed ( including by a majority of voters in San Diego County ). They've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars unsuccessfully suing to overturn the measure, refusing to issue clear guidelines to regulate dispensaries and looking the other way while the sheriff and district attorney ( who are independently elected and funded by the county, but don't report to the board ) used county resources in cooperating with federal agents to harass the dispensaries.
So we get the fact that the Board of Supervisors is strongly opposed to the notion of medical marijuana dispensaries.
But we are a nation of laws, and the voters legally enacted legislation directing their elected officials to allow these businesses to sell marijuana to patients with a doctor's recommendation.
And yet the board decided earlier this week to impose an $11,000 annual fee on dispensaries - yet another slap in the face to voters. It is an onerous, unreasonable fee designed not to regulate, but to financially strangle. ( By comparison, the county license to operate a massage parlor - another business open to abuse - costs just under $400 a year. )
The state charges $12,000 for a license to sell liquor, with an annual renewal of less than $1,000. And a business with an alcohol license can transfer that license down the road, recouping the original outlay.
A $12,000 investment is high enough to strongly encourage good behavior on the part of liquor establishments ( i.e., not serving minors, not serving those who are already drunk ) - because repeated violations of laws governing the sale of alcohol can result in a business being stripped of its license and losing that $12,000.
That sort of financial incentive is a good one - the initial fee is an investment in the business, and the annually recurring fee is not so high that it can't be recovered as a normal cost of doing business.
Considering that the medical marijuana dispensaries are required by law to be run as nonprofits, an $11,000 annual fee is unreasonable, the purpose behind it duplicitous.
Given the uneven implementation of Prop. 215 throughout California, and the overt defiance of some jurisdictions, we wonder whether the state Legislature shouldn't revisit the issue and impose statewide regulations.
A framework similar to that used to regulate alcohol sales would respect voters' wishes while also protecting the public from those who would abuse Prop. 215.
NewsHawk: Jim Behr: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: North County Times (Escondido, CA)
Copyright: 2011 North County Times
Contact: North County Times
Website: North County Times - Californian
Details: MapInc
So we get the fact that the Board of Supervisors is strongly opposed to the notion of medical marijuana dispensaries.
But we are a nation of laws, and the voters legally enacted legislation directing their elected officials to allow these businesses to sell marijuana to patients with a doctor's recommendation.
And yet the board decided earlier this week to impose an $11,000 annual fee on dispensaries - yet another slap in the face to voters. It is an onerous, unreasonable fee designed not to regulate, but to financially strangle. ( By comparison, the county license to operate a massage parlor - another business open to abuse - costs just under $400 a year. )
The state charges $12,000 for a license to sell liquor, with an annual renewal of less than $1,000. And a business with an alcohol license can transfer that license down the road, recouping the original outlay.
A $12,000 investment is high enough to strongly encourage good behavior on the part of liquor establishments ( i.e., not serving minors, not serving those who are already drunk ) - because repeated violations of laws governing the sale of alcohol can result in a business being stripped of its license and losing that $12,000.
That sort of financial incentive is a good one - the initial fee is an investment in the business, and the annually recurring fee is not so high that it can't be recovered as a normal cost of doing business.
Considering that the medical marijuana dispensaries are required by law to be run as nonprofits, an $11,000 annual fee is unreasonable, the purpose behind it duplicitous.
Given the uneven implementation of Prop. 215 throughout California, and the overt defiance of some jurisdictions, we wonder whether the state Legislature shouldn't revisit the issue and impose statewide regulations.
A framework similar to that used to regulate alcohol sales would respect voters' wishes while also protecting the public from those who would abuse Prop. 215.
NewsHawk: Jim Behr: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: North County Times (Escondido, CA)
Copyright: 2011 North County Times
Contact: North County Times
Website: North County Times - Californian
Details: MapInc
