skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

S.D. Council Appoints Medical Marijuana Task Force

Video unavailable. Read transcript below.

Above: City Council appoints a medical marijuana task force. The editors discuss federal and state laws.

— San Diego is asking a group of people to hammer out rules for medical marijuana dispensaries. The city council today appointed a task force to look into the issue.

The council appointed 11 people to the task force. It’s made up of doctors, lawyers, law enforcement, business owners and people in the medical marijuana field. Among other things, the group will look at how dispensaries can legally operate within the city. Councilwoman Marti Emerald says the task force is made up of people with different opinions on medical marijuana, including those who oppose it.

“You do have some people who aren’t real excited about medical marijuana being sold. But they have a point of view. And we need to honor and welcome all points of view so we can have a balanced policy moving forward,” she says.

Medical marijuana’s been legal in California since 1996, but San Diego County and several cities have placed a moratorium on dispensaries while the governments look into regulations.

To view PDF documents, Download Acrobat Reader.


Avatar for user 'MattthewCScallon'

MattthewCScallon | October 7, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. ― 7 years, 5 months ago

A couple of questions:
1) How close to schools, parks, churches, and government buildings will these pushers be allowed to sell?
2) How can DEA agents, who just happen to be residents of the city and therefore entitled to public records on these pushers' locations, get copies of these registered pot pushers?

BTW, the term "medical marijuana" is a red herring. The active ingredient in marijuana, THC, has long been prescribed by legal means without introducing the public with the health problems associated with pot smoking. This whole mess is a smoke screen --pun intended-- in order to advocate for full legalization of marijuana. Please be honest enough to admit, and then we can discuss whether or not legalization is a good idea.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'TheGuru'

TheGuru | October 8, 2009 at 11 a.m. ― 7 years, 5 months ago

I really hope that you will learn to let go of the archaic thinking that you cling to as a result of subscribing to outdated government propaganda and expired data which has been refuted.

If you are so worried about these facilities popping up so close to schools and churches, then you must be opposed to 7-11's being so near schools since they sell drugs (Cigarettes and Alcohol) which are far more addictive and deadly. As a parent wouldn't you prefer a facility that only sells to adults as opposed to a "pusher" working the street corner who will sell to ANYONE?

With regards to your last point, "Medical Marijuana" is no red herring. It has been proven to help relieve symptoms of MS, HIV, Cancer, Etc...

Plus marijuana appears to have anti-cancer properties, something synthesized THC does not. Please allow yourself to open your mind by reading the following article.

The CA voter spoke in 1996. The time to debate medical marijuana and prevent these collectives from operating expired when 215 was passed. The only thing this council should be doing is working to get the city of San Diego compliant with what the VOTER DECIDED 13 years ago.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Kevin'

Kevin | October 8, 2009 at 2:05 p.m. ― 7 years, 5 months ago

Why aren’t the active ingredients in this evil weed being extracted and sold as a pharmaceutical! It has already been proven that smoking the stuff causes cancer. I am very familiar with its effects and what it does to memory and cognitive ability which is a criminal offense to anyone taking it! The only reason this should be used, is to give someone who is already on his way to being a vegetable some pain relief.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Kevin'

Kevin | October 8, 2009 at 2:07 p.m. ― 7 years, 5 months ago

If you are going to leagalize this then use the profits from it to fund take care of the addicts that it helps make.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Wil_B_Hardigan'

Wil_B_Hardigan | October 8, 2009 at 4:44 p.m. ― 7 years, 5 months ago

Kevin, it's already been done.. It's harder to control the dosage, though. And your comment about it causing cancer has been proven wrong. It actually can help prevent it. See the link in the comment above yours.

Also, these dispensaries are set up as Non-profit mutual benefit corporations. Their proceeds either go back to it's members, business, and/or charities.

And to Matt up above, if the city issued the permits like they should be doing, it wouldn't be hard to find out where they are. And to answer your other question, the dispensaries SHOULD be zoned like a liquor store - 500 ft from schools, churches, and parks.

Glad I could help!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'MattthewCScallon'

MattthewCScallon | October 19, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. ― 7 years, 5 months ago

@TheGuru: "I really hope that you will learn to let go of the archaic thinking that you cling to as a result of subscribing to outdated government propaganda and expired data which has been refuted."

Looks like someone hasn't read the community discussion rules.

And what about the carcinogens which are present in higher concentrations than even in cigarettes? Does one alleged cancer-fighting agent outway the other cancer-causing agents?

Then, of course, there's that whole issue of second-hand smoke. Shall we have hotel rooms and outdoor smoking area segregated of marijuana smokers, too?

( | suggest removal )