CPCA White Paper on Marijuana Dispensaries

Home

a local hotel room where they advertise their appearance in advance, and pass out medical marijuana use recommendations to a line of “patients” at “about $150 a pop.”69 Other individuals just make up their own phony doctor recommendations,70 which are seldom, if ever, scrutinized by dispensary employees for authenticity. Undercover DEA agents sporting fake medical marijuana recommendations were readily able to purchase marijuana from a clinic.71 Far too often, California’s medical marijuana law is used as a smokescreen for healthy pot users to get their desired drug, and for proprietors of marijuana dispensaries to make money off them, without suffering any legal repercussions.72 On March 11, 2009, the Osteopathic Medical Board of California adopted the proposed decision revoking Dr. Alfonso Jimenez’s Osteopathic Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate and ordering him to pay $74,323.39 in cost recovery. Dr. Jimenez operated multiple marijuana clinics and advertised his services extensively on the Internet. Based on information obtained from raids on marijuana dispensaries in San Diego, in May of 2006, the San Diego Police Department ran two undercover operations on Dr. Jimenez’s clinic in San Diego. In January of 2007, a second undercover operation was conducted by the Laguna Beach Police Department at Dr. Jimenez’s clinic in Orange County. Based on the results of the undercover operations, the Osteopathic Medical Board charged Dr. Jimenez with gross negligence and repeated negligent acts in the treatment of undercover operatives posing as patients. After a six-day hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued her decision finding that Dr. Jimenez violated the standard of care by committing gross negligence and repeated negligence in care, treatment, and management of patients when he, among other things, issued medical marijuana recommendations to the undercover agents without conducting adequate medical examinations, failed to gain proper informed consent, and failed to consult with any primary care and/or treating physicians or obtain and review prior medical records before issuing medical marijuana recommendations. The ALJ also found Dr. Jimenez engaged in dishonest behavior by preparing false and/or misleading medical records and disseminating false and misleading advertising to the public, including representing himself as a “Cannabis Specialist” and “Qualified Medical Marijuana Examiner” when no such formal specialty or qualification existed. Absent any © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 12 All Rights Reserved requested administrative agency reconsideration or petition for court review, the decision was to become effective April 24, 2009. B. PROLIFERATION OF GROW HOUSES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS In recent years the proliferation of grow houses in residential neighborhoods has exploded. This phenomenon is country wide, and ranges from the purchase for purpose of marijuana grow operations of small dwellings to “high priced McMansions . . . .”73 Mushrooming residential marijuana grow operations have been detected in California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas.74 In 2007 alone, such illegal operations were detected and shut down by federal and state law enforcement officials in 41 houses in California, 50 homes in Florida, and 11 homes in New Hampshire.75 Since then, the number of residences discovered to be so impacted has increased exponentially. Part of this recent influx of illicit residential grow operations is because the “THC-rich ‘B.C. bud’ strain” of marijuana originally produced in British Columbia “can be grown only in controlled indoor environments,” and the Canadian market is now reportedly saturated with the product of “competing Canadian gangs,” often Asian in composition or outlaw motorcycle gangs like the Hells Angels.76 Typically, a gutted house can hold about 1,000 plants that will each yield almost half a pound of smokable marijuana; this collectively nets about 500 pounds of usable marijuana per harvest, with an average of three to four harvests per year.77 With a street value of $3,000 to $5,000 per pound” for high-potency marijuana, and such multiple harvests, “a successful grow house can bring in between $4.5 million and $10 million a year . . . .”78 The high potency of hydroponically grown marijuana can command a price as much as six times higher than commercial grade marijuana.79 C. LIFE SAFETY HAZARDS CREATED BY GROW HOUSES In Humboldt County, California, structure fires caused caused by unsafe indoor marijuana grow operations have become commonplace. The city of Arcata, which sports four marijuana dispensaries, was the site of a house fire in which a fan had fallen over and ignited a fire; it had been turned into a grow house by its tenant. Per Arcata Police Chief Randy Mendosa, altered and makeshift "no code" electrical service connections and overloaded wires used to operate high-powered grow lights and fans are common causes of the fires. Large indoor marijuana growing operations can create such excessive draws of electricity that PG&E power pole transformers are commonly blown. An average 1,500-square-foot tract house used for growing marijuana can generate monthly electrical bills from $1,000 to $3,000 per month. From an environmental standpoint, the carbon footprint from greenhouse gas emissions created by large indoor marijuana grow operations should be a major concern for every community in terms of complying with Air Board AB-32 regulations, as well as other greenhouse gas reduction policies. Typically, air vents are cut into roofs, water seeps into carpeting, windows are blacked out, holes are cut in floors, wiring is jury-rigged, and electrical circuits are overloaded to operate grow lights and other apparatus. When fires start, they spread quickly. The May 31, 2008 edition of the Los Angeles Times reported, "Law enforcement officials estimate that as many as 1,000 of the 7,500 homes in this Humboldt County community are being used to cultivate marijuana, slashing into the housing stock, spreading building-safety problems and sowing neighborhood discord." Not surprisingly, in this bastion of liberal pot possession rules that authorized the cultivation of up to 99 plants for medicinal purpose, most structural fires in the community of Arcata have been of late associated with marijuana cultivation.80 Chief of Police Mendosa clarified that the actual number of marijuana grow houses in Arcata has been an ongoing subject of public debate. Mendosa added, "We know there are numerous grow houses in almost every neighborhood in and around the city, which has been the source of constant citizen complaints." House fires caused by © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 13 All Rights Reserved grower-installed makeshift electrical wiring or tipped electrical fans are now endemic to Humboldt County.81 Chief Mendosa also observed that since marijuana has an illicit street value of up to $3,000 per pound, marijuana grow houses have been susceptible to violent armed home invasion robberies. Large-scale marijuana grow houses have removed significant numbers of affordable houses from the residential rental market. When property owners discover their rentals are being used as grow houses, the residences are often left with major structural damage, which includes air vents cut into roofs and floors, water damage to floors and walls, and mold. The June 9, 2008 edition of the New York Times shows an unidentified Arcata man tending his indoor grow; the man claimed he can make $25,000 every three months by selling marijuana grown in the bedroom of his rented house.82 Claims of ostensible medical marijuana growing pursuant to California's medical marijuana laws are being advanced as a mostly false shield in an attempt to justify such illicit operations. Neither is fire an uncommon occurrence at grow houses elsewhere across the nation. Another occurred not long ago in Holiday, Florida.83 To compound matters further, escape routes for firefighters are often obstructed by blocked windows in grow houses, electric wiring is tampered with to steal electricity, and some residences are even booby-trapped to discourage and repel unwanted intruders.84 D. INCREASED ORGANIZED GANG ACTIVITIES Along with marijuana dispensaries and the grow operations to support them come members of organized criminal gangs to operate and profit from them. Members of an ethnic Chinese drug gang were discovered to have operated 50 indoor grow operations in the San Francisco Bay area, while Cuban-American crime organizations have been found to be operating grow houses in Florida and elsewhere in the South. A Vietnamese drug ring was caught operating 19 grow houses in Seattle and Puget Sound, Washington.85 In July of 2008, over 55 Asian gang members were indicted for narcotics trafficking in marijuana and ecstasy, including members of the Hop Sing Gang that had been actively operating marijuana grow operations in Elk Grove and elsewhere in the vicinity of Sacramento, California.86 E. EXPOSURE OF MINORS TO MARIJUANA Minors who are exposed to marijuana at dispensaries or residences where marijuana plants are grown may be subtly influenced to regard it as a generally legal drug, and inclined to sample it. In grow houses, children are exposed to dangerous fire and health conditions that are inherent in indoor grow operations.87 Dispensaries also sell marijuana to minors.88 F. IMPAIRED PUBLIC HEALTH Indoor marijuana grow operations emit a skunk-like odor,89 and foster generally unhealthy conditions like allowing chemicals and fertilizers to be placed in the open, an increased carbon dioxide level within the grow house, and the accumulation of mold, 90 all of which are dangerous to any children or adults who may be living in the residence,91 although many grow houses are uninhabited. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 14 All Rights Reserved G. LOSS OF BUSINESS TAX REVENUE When business suffers as a result of shoppers staying away on account of traffic, blight, crime, and the undesirability of a particular business district known to be frequented by drug users and traffickers, and organized criminal gang members, a city’s tax revenues necessarily drop as a direct consequence. H. DECREASED QUALITY OF LIFE IN DETERIORATING NEIGHBORHOODS, BOTH BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL Marijuana dispensaries bring in the criminal element and loiterers, which in turn scare off potential business patrons of nearby legitimate businesses, causing loss of revenues and deterioration of the affected business district. Likewise, empty homes used as grow houses emit noxious odors in residential neighborhoods, project irritating sounds of whirring fans,92 and promote the din of vehicles coming and going at all hours of the day and night. Near harvest time, rival growers and other uninvited enterprising criminals sometimes invade grow houses to beat “clip crews” to the site and rip off mature plants ready for harvesting. As a result, violence often erupts from confrontations in the affected residential neighborhood.93 ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS REGARDING ADVERSE SECONDARY EFFECTS On balance, any utility to medical marijuana patients in care giving and convenience that marijuana dispensaries may appear to have on the surface is enormously outweighed by a much darker reality that is punctuated by the many adverse secondary effects created by their presence in communities, recounted here. These drug distribution centers have even proven to be unsafe for their own proprietors. POSSIBLE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSES TO MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES A. IMPOSED MORATORIA BY ELECTED LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS While in the process of investigating and researching the issue of licensing marijuana dispensaries, as an interim measure city councils may enact date-specific moratoria that expressly prohibit the presence of marijuana dispensaries, whether for medical use or otherwise, and prohibiting the sale of marijuana in any form on such premises, anywhere within the incorporated boundaries of the city until a specified date. Before such a moratorium’s date of expiration, the moratorium may then either be extended or a city ordinance enacted completely prohibiting or otherwise restricting the establishment and operation of marijuana dispensaries, and the sale of all marijuana products on such premises. County supervisors can do the same with respect to marijuana dispensaries sought to be established within the unincorporated areas of a county. Approximately 80 California cities, including the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, Pinole, and Pleasant Hill, and 6 counties, including Contra Costa County, have enacted moratoria banning the existence of marijuana dispensaries. In a novel approach, the City of Arcata issued a moratorium on any new dispensaries in the downtown area, based on no agricultural activities being permitted to occur there.94 © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 15 All Rights Reserved B. IMPOSED BANS BY ELECTED LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS While the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 permits seriously ill persons to legally obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon a physician’s recommendation, it is silent on marijuana dispensaries and does not expressly authorize the sale of marijuana to patients or primary caregivers. Neither Proposition 215 nor Senate Bill 420 specifically authorizes the dispensing of marijuana in any form from a storefront business. And, no state statute presently exists that expressly permits the licensing or operation of marijuana dispensaries.95 Consequently, approximately 39 California cities, including the Cities of Concord and San Pablo, and 2 counties have prohibited marijuana dispensaries within their respective geographical boundaries, while approximately 24 cities, including the City of Martinez, and 7 counties have allowed such dispensaries to do business within their jurisdictions. Even the the complete prohibition of marijuana dispensaries within a given locale cannot be found to run afoul of current California law with respect to permitted use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, so long as the growing or use of medical marijuana by a city or county resident in conformance with state law is not proscribed.96 In November of 2004, the City of Brampton in Ontario, Canada passed The Grow House Abatement By-law, which authorized the city council to appoint inspectors and local police officers to inspect suspected grow houses and render safe hydro meters, unsafe wiring, booby traps, and any violation of the Fire Code or Building Code, and remove discovered controlled substances and ancillary equipment designed to grow and manufacture such substances, at the involved homeowner’s cost.97 And, after state legislators became appalled at the proliferation of for-profit residential grow operations, the State of Florida passed the Marijuana Grow House Eradication act (House Bill 173) in June of 2008. The The governor signed this bill into law, making owning a house for the purpose of cultivating, packaging, and distributing marijuana a third-degree felony; growing 25 or more marijuana plants a seconddegree felony; and growing “25 or more marijuana plants in a home with children present” a firstdegree felony.98 It has been estimated that approximately 17,500 marijuana grow operations were active in late 2007.99 To avoid becoming a dumping ground for organized crime syndicates who decide to move their illegal grow operations to a more receptive legislative environment, California and other states might be wise to quickly follow suit with similar bills, for it may already be happening.100 C. IMPOSED RESTRICTED ZONING AND OTHER REGULATION BY ELECTED LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS If so inclined, rather than completely prohibit marijuana dispensaries, through their zoning power city and county officials have the authority to restrict owner operators to locate and operate so-called “medical marijuana dispensaries” in prescribed geographical areas of a city or designated unincorporated areas of a county, and require them to meet prescribed licensing requirements before being allowed to do so. This is a risky course of action though for would-be dispensary operators, and perhaps lawmakers too, since federal authorities do not recognize any lawful right for the sale, purchase, or use of marijuana for medical use or otherwise anywhere in the United States, including California. Other cities and counties have included as a condition of licensure for dispensaries that the operator shall “violate no federal or state law,” which puts any applicant in a “Catch-22” situation since to federal authorities any possession or sale of marijuana is automatically a violation of federal law. Still other municipalities have recently enacted or revised comprehensive ordinances that address a variety of medical marijuana issues. For example, according to the City of Arcata Community © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 16 All Rights Reserved Development Department in Arcata, California, in response to constant citizen complaints from what had become an extremely serious community problem, the Arcata City Council revised its Land Use Standards for Medical Marijuana Cultivation and Dispensing. In December of 2008, City of Arcata Ordinance #1382 was enacted. It includes the following provisions: “Categories: 1. Personal Use 2. Cooperatives or Collectives Medical Marijuana for Personal Use: An individual qualified patient shall be allowed to cultivate medical marijuana within his/her private residence in conformance with the following standards: 1. Cultivation area shall not exceed 50 square feet and not exceed ten feet (10’) in height. a. Cultivation lighting shall not exceed 1200 watts; b. Gas products (CO2, butane, etc.) for medical marijuana cultivation or processing is prohibited. c. Cultivation and sale is prohibited as a Home Occupation (sale or dispensing is prohibited). d. Qualified patient shall reside in the residence where the medical marijuana cultivation occurs; e. Qualified patient shall not participate in medical marijuana cultivation in any other residence. f. Residence kitchen, bathrooms, and primary bedrooms shall not be used primarily for medical marijuana cultivation; g. Cultivation area shall comply with the California Building Code § 1203.4 Natural Ventilation or § 402.3 Mechanical Ventilation. h. The medical marijuana cultivation area shall not adversely affect the health or safety of the nearby residents. 2. City Zoning Administrator my approve up to 100 square foot: a. Documentation showing why the 50 square foot cultivation area standard is not feasible. b. Include written permission from the property owner. c. City Building Official must inspect for California Building Code and Fire Code. d. At a minimum, the medical marijuana cultivation area shall be constructed with a 1-hour firewall assembly of green board. e. Cultivation of medical marijuana for personal use is limited to detached single family residential properties, or the medical marijuana cultivation area shall be limited to a garage or self-contained outside accessory building that is secured, locked, and fully enclosed. Medical Marijuana Cooperatives or Collectives. 1. Allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. 2. In Commercial, Industrial, and Public Facility Zoning Districts. 3. Business form must be a cooperative or collective. 4. Existing cooperative or collective shall be in full compliance within one year. 5. Total number of medical marijuana cooperatives or collectives is limited to four and ultimately two. 6. Special consideration if located within a. A 300 foot radius from any existing residential zoning district, b. Within 500 feet of any other medical marijuana cooperative or collective. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 17 All Rights Reserved c. Within 500 feet from any existing public park, playground, day care, or school. 7. Source of medical marijuana. a. Permitted Cooperative or Collective. On-site medical marijuana cultivation shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the total floor area, but in no case greater than 1,500 square feet and not exceed ten feet (10’) in height. b. Off-site Permitted Cultivation. Use Permit application and be updated annually. c. Qualified Patients. Medical marijuana acquired from an individual qualified patient shall received no monetary remittance, and the qualified patient is a member of the medical marijuana cooperative or collective. Collective or cooperative may credit its members for medical marijuana provided to the collective or cooperative, which they may allocate to other members. 8. Operations Manual at a minimum include the following information: a. Staff screening process including appropriate background checks. b. Operating hours. c. c. Site, floor plan of the facility. d. Security measures located on the premises, including but not limited to, lighting, alarms, and automatic law enforcement notification. e. Screening, registration and validation process for qualified patients. f. Qualified patient records acquisition and retention procedures. g. Process for tracking medical marijuana quantities and inventory controls including on-site cultivation, processing, and/or medical marijuana products received from outside sources. h. Measures taken to minimize or offset energy use from the cultivation or processing of medical marijuana. i. Chemicals stored, used and any effluent discharged into the City’s wastewater and/or storm water system. 9. Operating Standards. a. No dispensing medical marijuana more than twice a day. b. Dispense to an individual qualified patient who has a valid, verified physician’s recommendation. The medical marijuana cooperative or collective shall verify that the physician’s recommendation is current and valid. c. Display the client rules and/or regulations at each building entrance. d. Smoking, ingesting or consuming medical marijuana on the premises or in the vicinity is prohibited. e. Persons under the age of eighteen (18) are precluded from entering the premises. f. No on-site display of marijuana plants. g. No distribution of live plants, starts and clones on through Use Permit. h. Permit the on-site display or sale of marijuana paraphernalia only through the Use Permit. i. Maintain all necessary permits, and pay all appropriate taxes. Medical marijuana cooperatives or collectives shall also provide invoices to vendors to ensure vendor’s tax liability responsibility; j. Submit an “Annual Performance Review Report” which is intended to identify effectiveness of the approved Use Permit, Operations Manual, and Conditions of Approval, as well as the identification and implementation of additional procedures as deemed necessary. k. Monitoring review fees shall accompany the “Annual Performance Review Report” for costs associated with the review and approval of the report. 10. Permit Revocation or Modification. A use permit may be revoked or modified for noncompliance with one or more of the items described above.” © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 18 All Rights Reserved LIABILITY ISSUES With respect to issuing business licenses to marijuana storefront facilities a very real issue has arisen: counties and cities are arguably aiding and abetting criminal violations of federal law. Such actions clearly put the counties permitting these establishments in very precarious legal positions. Aiding and abetting a crime occurs when someone commits a crime, the person aiding that crime knew the criminal offender intended to commit the crime, and the person aiding the crime intended to assist the criminal offender in the commission of the crime. The legal definition of aiding and abetting could be applied to counties and cities allowing marijuana facilities to open. A county that has been informed about the Gonzales v. Raich decision knows that all marijuana activity is federally illegal. Furthermore, such counties know that individuals involved in the marijuana business are subject to federal prosecution. When an individual individual in California cultivates, possesses, transports, or uses marijuana, he or she is committing a federal crime. A county issuing a business license to a marijuana facility knows that the people there are committing federal crimes. The county also knows that those involved in providing and obtaining marijuana are intentionally violating federal law. This very problem is why some counties are re-thinking the presence of marijuana facilities in their communities. There is a valid fear of being prosecuted for aiding and abetting federal drug crimes. Presently, two counties have expressed concern that California’s medical marijuana statutes have placed them in such a precarious legal position. Because of the serious criminal ramifications involved in issuing business permits and allowing storefront marijuana businesses to operate within their borders, San Diego and San Bernardino Counties filed consolidated lawsuits against the state seeking to prevent the State of California from enforcing its medical marijuana statutes which potentially subject them to criminal liability, and squarely asserting that California medical marijuana laws are preempted by federal law in this area. After California’s medical marijuana laws were all upheld at the trial level, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the State of California could mandate counties to adopt and enforce a voluntary medical marijuana identification card system, and the appellate court bypassed the preemption issue by finding that San Diego and San Bernardino Counties lacked standing to raise this challenge to California’s medical marijuana laws. Following this state appellate court decision, independent petitions for review filed by the two counties were both denied by the California Supreme Court. Largely because of the quandary that county and city peace officers in California face in the field when confronted with alleged medical marijuana with respect to enforcement of the total federal criminal prohibition of all marijuana, and state exemption from criminal penalties for medical marijuana users and caregivers, petitions for a writ of certiorari were then separately filed by the two counties seeking review of this decision by the United States Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of County of San Diego, County of San Bernardino, and Gary Penrod, as Sheriff of the County of San Bernardino v. San Diego Norml, State of California, and Sandra Shewry, Director of the California Department of Health Services in her official capacity, Ct.App. Case No. D-5-333.) The High Court has requested the State of California and other interested parties to file responsive briefs to the two counties’ and Sheriff Penrod’s writ petitions before it decides whether to grant or deny review of these consolidated cases. The petitioners would then be entitled to file a reply to any filed response. It is anticipated that the U.S. Supreme Court will formally grant or deny review of these consolidated cases in late April or early May of 2009. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 19 All Rights Reserved In another case, City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355, although the federal preemption issue was not squarely raised or addressed in its decision, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal found that public policy considerations allowed a city standing to challenge a state trial court’s order directing the return by a city police department of seized medical marijuana to a person determined to be a patient. After the court-ordered return of this federally banned substance was upheld at the intermediate appellate level, and not accepted for review by the California Supreme Court, a petition for a writ of certiorari was filed by the City of Garden Grove to the U.S. Supreme Court to consider and reverse the state appellate court decision. But, that petition was also denied. However, the case of People v. Kelly (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 124—in which a successful challenge was made to California’s Medical Marijuana Program’s maximum amounts of marijuana and marijuana plants permitted to be possessed by medical marijuana patients (Cal. H&S Code sec. 11362.77 et seq.), which limits were found at the court of appeal level to be without legal authority for the state to impose—has been accepted for review by the California Supreme Court on the issue of whether this law was an improper amendment to Proposition 215’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996. A SAMPLING OF EXPERIENCES WITH MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES 1. MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES-THE SAN