San Francisco debates, Oakland shuffles, Alameda shifts and patients sue for safe access

Since Oakland established the first ordinance condoning and regulating dispensaries in early 2004, at least 21 other cities and counties have followed suit. The road has not always been smooth.

Old CARE medical marijuana dispensary building.

Recently, with the closure of the Oakland Compassionate Healing Center on Grand Avenue and Compassionate Caregivers on Broadway, the process of selecting two new dispensary sites and permit operators has begun anew for the city. Compassionate Caregivers cried foul, and the minor nature of zoning violations involved did make it look suspiciously like a vendetta by a City Administrator determined to reduce patient access.

Meanwhile CARE moved downtown to 701 Broadway, by police headquarters, leaving the SR71 Coffeeshop, at 377 17th St., as the city’s only open dispensary for a brief period in October.

In Alameda County, as officials prepared to shut down several county dispensaries they hesitated, dragged their feet and missed their own deadline for announcing which three dispensaries will receive permits to operate in the unincorporated areas.

At the Alameda board meeting, sheriff’s deputies said they hoped to disclose which clinics will be in within 30 to 70 days. As this issue goes to press, the process is on hold and the length or effect of this delay remains to be seen. Thousands of cards have been distributed throughout the county, from the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Club and elsewhere that authorize holders to buy marijuana from dispensaries. “There is a massive number to deal with,” said Pam Willow, an analyst with the county’s Public Health Department. There are only a few dispensaries in unincorporated areas, Berkeley, Oakland and Hayward to supply patrons who also come from throughout the Bay Area and Central Valley.

Across the Bay, San Francisco's dispensary permit ordinance by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi worked its way through a painful process designed to make no one happy. The ordinance grew into more than 60 pages of compromises that create an uncertain effect. At least 50 people spoke at an Oct. 11 public hearing on the measure, mostly favoring regulation but not in the form offered. Political fireworks erupted at the Oct. 18 Board meeting where the policy was supposed to be finalized. This, along with several other delays held up the process and the unregulated status quo held sway, at least temporarily.

Caught in a pinch between federal law, NIMBY neighbors, and angry patients and caregivers, both citizens and Board members privately expressed that the process should return to committee, yet it plugged along as the Supervisors’ staff scheduled meetings with concerned constituents.

Medical marijuana growing fast

While some California cities put moratoriums on licensing dispensaries as they study the issue, a handful have gone so far as to permanently ban dispensing, despite state law that underscores patients’ right to medical access and legitimizes collective activities. As of Oct. 6, at least 56 localities had moratoriums while 13 had adopted permanent bans.

That's when a group of patients launched a series of lawsuits against some of the municipalities that set bans on zoning local medical marijuana dispensaries.

The legal team of Americans for Safe Access is handling the lawsuits, and the patients it represents hope that, through litigation or threat thereof, local governments will decide to establish reasonable and sensible regulations.

The patient organization filed its initial suit against Fresno, followed by lawsuits against Concord, Pasadena, and Susanville. The group maintains that localities can regulate dispensaries under state law but cannot ban them. It advocates for fair local regulations.