|
Morton, Sherry
<br /> From: Letitia Pepper <letitiapepper @yahoo.com>
<br /> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 11:51 PM
<br /> To: Bailey, Rusty; Gardner, Mike; Melendrez, Andy; MacArthur, Chris; Davis, Paul; Soubirous,
<br /> Mike; Perry, Jim; Burnard,John; Russo,John A.; Geuss, Gary; Morton, Sherry
<br /> Cc: Alicia Robinson; Cassie MacDuff
<br /> Subject: Here Is Andy Melendrez's Take on Events at the Brownie Mary Democratic Club Meeting
<br /> Re: [External] Who at City Hall Is Discussing, Behind the Scenes, Letting Three Medical
<br /> Marijuana Dispensaries Open? And on What Terms?
<br /> Hon. Mayor, City Council, City Attorney, City Manager and Madame Clerk:
<br /> I received the following response from Councilmember Melendrez about my e-mail asking who at City Hall is discussing
<br /> letting three medical marijuana dispensaries open. I told him I thought his response should be shared with everyone.
<br /> Mr. Melendrez says, essentially, that all he talked about at the BMDC meeting was what he'd done during City Council
<br /> meetings. While it is true he talked about the position he took when the City adopted its unconstitutional-under-Prop. 215
<br /> limits on what patients are allowed to grow, it is also true that at the Brownie Mary Democratic Club meeting, he
<br /> specifically said that the City"is discussing" allowing three dispensaries to open.
<br /> He specifically used the present tense when talking about clearly on-going discussions, and specifically said "three
<br /> dispensaries." He did not mention grow houses.
<br /> I remember this meeting and what was said very well, because I had worked hard to get that local initiative on the
<br /> ballot. So the idea that the City was "discussing" letting "three dispensaries"open, so soon after the City opposed the
<br /> local initiative to let 10 dispensaries open, was very, very memorable.
<br /> Mr. Melendrez did not restrict that his statement at the BMDC meeting to talking about things he had said from the
<br /> dais. People appreciated that his approach to patients' right to grow was less restrictive than other council members, and
<br /> I complimented him on that. But he clearly made comments indicating that there were on-going discussions about three
<br /> dispensaries opening.
<br /> So I still want to know: which of you council members know about these discussions? Are you actively involved in
<br /> them? This is something that should be a matter for public discussion.
<br /> Lack of transparency in these marijuana-related deals will be news. The City of Sacramento will be making the news
<br /> because of things that were not publicly discussed, yet which came to pass in a most unlawful way. The City of
<br /> Sacramento approved the building of, and an ordinance to support the opening of(all in one document, apparently), a
<br /> distribution center for marijuana, to be built by an out-of-state alcohol distributor. Part of this down and dirty deal also
<br /> involved the City sharing, in perpetuity, something like 2.5 percent of the distributor's revenue.
<br /> This was not a tax, not a permit fee, but the going-into-business of the City with a private company. That is
<br /> illegal. Even worse, it was done with inadequate public notice and with no opportunity for anyone else to bid on becoming
<br /> the exclusive distributor of marijuana. (This deal, BTW, depends on the new state law, Medical Marijuana Regulation &
<br /> Safety Act, being valid --which it is not.)
<br /> Furthermore, no one should be holding their breath, waiting for the next"legalization" initiative to pass. There is a lot of
<br /> opposition to it, from increasing numbers of people like me. People who have any experience with marijuana as medicine
<br /> see no valid reason that the government should continue to treat a medicinal herb like a dangerous drug, or put a sin tax
<br /> on it like we do with alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol and tobacco cause enormous public health costs, and are addictive for
<br /> many people. Marijuana reduces health costs (remember the $600,000.00 I've saved since 2007?)
<br /> It also is not addictive. Animal studies show that animals will not self-medicate with marijuana (the standard method for
<br /> testing whether a substance is addictive or not). The federal government says, "It must be addictive because people
<br /> continue to use it no matter what punishments we and our court systems apply to try to make them stop!"
<br /> That is not a sign that marijuana is addictive; it's a sign that marijuana works as medicine, by replacing, with a phyto-
<br /> cannabinoid, whatever endo-cannabinoid a person's body is missing or deficient in. Marijuana makes people feel better,
<br /> the same way water makes you feel better when you're dehydrated, or food makes you feel better when your blood sugar
<br /> is low. It makes you feel better when your body is deficient in one or more cannabinoids.
<br /> So, the bottom line is, is my local government going to try to make marijuana less affordable for people by making
<br /> backroom deals with would-be dispensary owners? Who will also want you to make it illegal for patients to grow their own
<br /> medicine--so they can make bigger and bigger profit?
<br /> Monopolies are bad for the general economy. A city's economy is better off if more of its citizens have a little bit more
<br /> disposable income, than if some out-of-the area person makes a bigger profit out of those citizens' little bit of disposable
<br /> cash.
<br /> 1
<br />
|