CA Senate Committees Approve AB 2650
June 30th, 2010Posted by Don Duncan
Two California Senate committees approved a bill this week that will require a 600-foot buffer zone between medical cannabis collectives and schools statewide. AB 2650 was approved by the Senate Health Committee and the Local Government Committee over the objection of Americans for Safe Access (ASA) and other medical cannabis advocates. However, ASA and allies can claim a victory in the bills march towards final approval by the Senate. The initial draft would have required a 1,000-foot buffer zone around a laundry list of sensitive uses. Pressure from the medical cannabis community forced the author, Assemblymember Joan Buchanan (D-Alamo), to retreat to the less onerous provision.
AB 2650 is expected to win final approval in the Senate this session. Cities and counties can adopt smaller buffer zones before January 1, 2011, when the new legislation takes effect. Local governemnt retains the right to adopt larger buffer zones at any time. The bill is sponsored by the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), a law enforcement lobbyist group that opposes medical cannabis.
June 30th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
I hope one or two of the brilliant people involved with ASA will explain why you opposed a 600 ft clearance between dispensaries and schools. It appears that ASA’s concern is fund-raising, since dispensaries are major supporters of ASA. And, with the canabis near schools, your profits should increase even more. Appears shameful if ordinarly, common-sense ethics are consided.
June 30th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
[...] County Sheriff Lee Baca suggested the killings may be linked to drug cartels last week. At a Senate committee hearing on Tuesday, California Assemblymember Joan Buchanan (D-Alamo) used newspaper clippings of last [...]
July 2nd, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Re @ John Stone: Maybe ASA opposed a 600 ft clearance because this is blantant discrimination of a group patients for no legitimate reason. While claims will be made that having a dispensary so close to a school only promotes the youth to indulge, should we not better review the current business’ surrounding schools? Liqour Stores (Mini Marts), Smoke Shops (Cigarette stores), along with cosumer giants like Wal-Mart or Target (large name brand pharmacy drugs, some turned to harsher substances). What about the advertising present by companies like Pepsi or Coca-cola who have numerous vending machines located across the school campuses, which at times resembles alcohol and beer marketing ploys. Why not question the PORAC, who is “To represent and protect the rights and benefits of peace officers” yet discriminates against its own offices who choose to use a medical cannabis.
I think the questions shouldn’t be focused towards ASA, but more towards the law represenatives pushing this bill. What political gains to they seek to gain?
July 3rd, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Crime statistics and the accounts of local officials surveyed by ASA indicate that crime is actually reduced by the presence of a collective; and complaints from citizens and surrounding businesses are either negligible or are significantly reduced with the implementation of local regulations.In Oakland, where collectives have been licensed since 2004, City Administrator Barbara Killey, notes that “The areas around the dispensaries may be some of the safest areas of Oakland now because of the level of security, surveillance, etc…since the ordinance passed.”
In the City of Los Angeles, Police Chief Charlie Beck told City Councilmembers that the claim that patients’ associations attract crime “doesn’t really bear out.” In fact, the overall crime rate in Los Angeles dropped during the proliferation of collectives and cooperatives in that city. Given that effective local regulations address public safety concerns, there is no public safety rationale for a statewide policy keeping collectives and cooperatives away from sensitive uses – including schools.