skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

San Diego Hazy About Medical Marijuana Rules


Aired 9/7/09

Some San Diego city council members think the city’s rules about medical marijuana are hazy. On Tuesday the council will consider creating a task force to clear things up.

— Some San Diego city council members think the city’s rules about medical marijuana are hazy. On Tuesday the council will consider creating a task force to clear things up.

The city of San Diego was waiting to see whether the U.S. Supreme Court would hear an appeal of California’s Medical Marijuana law brought by San Diego County. The court declined to consider the case. Now the city’s moving forward. Councilwoman Marti Emerald says a task force will help solidify the city’s policy on how to regulate dispensaries

“We make it easy for the cooperatives, the caregivers, the patients to operate," she said. "So that we send the right signal to law enforcement about how we are going to enforce state law here in the city of San Diego.”

Emerald said the mayor’s office also wants to clarify the rules about where dispensaries can open. There are eight permitted dispensaries in San Diego, but it’s estimated more than five times that amount are actually operating.

To view PDF documents, Download Acrobat Reader.


Avatar for user 'Donna_Lambert'

Donna_Lambert | September 7, 2009 at 9:38 a.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

A task force is definately needed. It has been 13 years since the voters in the State of California voted to legalize marijuana for medicinal use. From the senate bill archives to the attorney general guidelines, it is clear that sb420 attempted to make way for the distribution of medical marijuana.
Kudos to Marti Emerald for standing up for what is right, in a County that has spent millions of dollars to undermine this state law.
Limiting the number of dispensaries is NOT the answer. This only leads to high prices as patients are forced to purchase from a limited number of people. Further, collectives are legal, it is not a matter of how many people can get together to form collectives. The answer lies in zoning, regulation, and taxation. Over 50 cities have set up zoning guidelines, so nobody needs to re-create the wheel here. Logic shows that dispensaries are typically zoned away from schools, churchs, and parks. Dispensaries in the bay area pay MILLIONS of dollars in taxes every year.
I find it ironic that while the city is talking about how to safely dispense medicine, the narcotics task force, operating under the direction of the district attorney's office is STILL using undercover officers who lie to doctors about their symptoms to obtain medical marijuana cards, to go about joining collectives and co-ops to make purchases so that they can arrest people.
I have worked collectively with a small group of people. A police officer who lied to a doctor about his symptoms to obtain a valid medical marijuana rec purchased medical marijuana from me after having me verifiy that he was a patient AND explaining to me that he was staying at his brother in laws and looking for his own place. For helping this man twice, I experienced a swat style raid, had my home torn up, was taken to jail, and I am facing trial on seven felonies. Meanwhile, I have no criminal record, started using medical marijuana while on chemotherapy, and I am under constant medical care. Estimated cost to taxpayers on this Operation GreenRx attack against the medical marijuana community is over 2 million dollars and counting.
Is our local government like the many arms of an octopus, where each one is doing its own thing without regard to the others? Why am I facing trial, when as of last month there were at least 60 stores known to be open?
Why is our District Attorney wasting endless taxpayer dollars to attack and try people in the medical marijuana community when the law clearly states that we can "collectively associate" and be exempt from sales and all sales related charges?
Please make phone calls to Bonnie Dumanis (619)531-3784 and ask her office to start working with the medical marijuana community. Please ask them to drop the case against Donna Lambert (ACL004). On a larger level, please remind her that the people of the state of California have voted, Medical marijuana has a 70-90% voter approval rating. Thank You.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'scottportraits'

scottportraits | September 7, 2009 at 8:34 p.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

Right. After 13 years this city (and other California jurisdictions) are still stalling and making a mess of the whole idea. Patient's go without medicine and relief. Taxes that would be levied are never collected. Co-ops and dispensaries are never allowed to open. Ongoing scrapes with local law enforcement continues......

Why don't they just do it and let it be taxed ? What century are we in...the 17th, the 19th ??? It all seems so Puritanical, and hypocritical.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Wil_B_Hardigan'

Wil_B_Hardigan | September 8, 2009 at 3:12 p.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

I hope your case gets dropped Lambert. Sounds like a case of entrapment if I ever heard one.

So the City of SD is no longer accepting business licenses for Medical Cannabis Collectives/Co-ops. Apparently this "zoning" issue might put off giving these businesses licenses to operate for at least a few months. Apparently the city sent letters to Co-ops who they previously approved stating that their licenses are now invalid.

How can you give a business a green light to operate, they set up and are conducting business already, and then rescind their licenses??

This sounds like just another way to stall the inevitable and throw a wrench into things. STOP WASTING TAXPAYERS MONEY AND STOP FIGHTING THE LAWS THE WE THE PEOPLE PASSED 13 YEARS AGO!!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'randolphslinky'

randolphslinky | September 10, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

I agree with the above comments. We need a more realistic approach to this, busting otherwise law abiding citizens for weed is really a waste of taxpayer money.

( | suggest removal )