We received some feedback to our last update on Claremont's medical marijuana dispensary ordinance.
One reader sent in a link to some legislation proposed by Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA). The bill seeks to legalize personal use as well as medical marijuana applications. Frank's press release for the bill (HR 5842) quotes Frank as he explains his reasoning:
"When doctors recommend the use of marijuana for their patients and states are willing to permit it, I think it’s wrong for the federal government to subject either the doctors or the patients to criminal prosecution. More broadly speaking, the norm in America is for the states to decide whether particular behaviors should be made criminal. To make the smoking of marijuana, whether for medical purposes or not, one of those extremely rare instances of federal crime – literally, to make a ‘federal case’ out of it – is wholly disproportionate to the activity involved. We do not have federal criminal prohibitions against drinking alcoholic beverages, and there are generally no criminal penalties for the use of tobacco at the state and federal levels for adults. There is no rational argument for treating marijuana so differently from these other substances.”
“To those who say that the government should not be encouraging the smoking of marijuana, my response is that I completely agree. But it is a great mistake to divide all human activity into two categories: those that are criminally prohibited, and those that are encouraged. In a free society, there must be a very considerable zone of activity between those two poles in which people are allowed to make their own choices as long as they are not impinging on the rights, freedom, or property of others. I believe it is important with regard to tobacco, marijuana and alcohol, among other things, that we strictly regulate the age at which people may use these substances. And, enforcement of age restrictions should be firm. But, criminalizing choices that adults make because we think they are unwise ones, when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society."
* * *
Another reader wrote in to criticize the letter the Claremont Chamber of Commerce sent in to the Claremont Courier regarding the ordinance. The Chamber is opposed to allowing the dispensaries. The reader said:
Subject: insane in the membrane
To: claremontbuzzatyahoo.com
That's one extra-bizarre letter from the directors of the Claremont Chamber of Commerce. Point by point:
1.) "Other dispensaries in the state have been targets of burglaries and robberies, not just in the facility, but also 'follow home' crimes where the patrons of such dispensaries have been the victims."
So have banks and supermarkets and liquor stores. The Von's on Baseline has near-daily shoplifters; a few years ago, the manager on duty confronted a shoplifter in the liquor section, and ended up with a gun in his face. The CPD answers frequent calls for service from the local banks, from tellers accidentally triggering robbery alarms and people trying to cash fraudulent checks and whatever else. Should we close the supermarkets and the banks? What kind of reasoning is this?
Every business with cash or valuable products on the premises is a potential target for criminals, and no one ever argues for closing any other kind of business on that basis. Five minutes with the police blotter devastates this argument. Criminals target retail businesses. The bad actor in that sentence are the criminals, not the businesses. The chamber's argument in a nutshell: We don't want you to open a business in our community, because you might get robbed. And here I thought the Chamber of Commerce was pro-business.
"We are concerned about the impact this potential crime would have on industrial, commercial and residential areas as well as the impact on the time commitment of our police department."
Well, we wouldn't want the police department to have to investigate crime, now, would we?
2.) Employment. "Businesses have a right to protect themselves and their customers by drug testing their employees to help maintain the quality and safety of their work environment."
Huh? If there are marijuana dispensaries in Claremont, employers can't test their employees for drugs or regulate the safety of their places of work? Just like the way that employers can't forbid their employees to be drunk on the job, because Claremont permits the presence of liquor stores. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
"We are concerned with the issues that have surfaced in regards to the use of 'medicinal marijuana' and protecting employers rights in terms of testing and workplace use of marijuana."
This is pure Claremont reasoning: "We are concerned with the issues that have surfaced..." What issues? That have surfaced where? What statute, case law, or public policy are they referring to? Can they reference a news article, a piece of legislation, anything? What the f*** are these people babbling on about?
3). Health. "Due to the fact that these facilities are not regulated pharmacies, it is unclear who would be in charge of enforcement of any health issues of such a facility including amounts, quality, cleanliness, etc. The Chamber is concerned that either these issues would be the responsibility of city staff, or even worse, go completely unmonitored."
This is AWESOME -- the letter begins with a warning that the presence of marijuana dispensaries will "open up our city, landowners and business districts to potential federal raids and prosecution," then closes with a somber bit of handwringing over the dire fact that marijuana dispensaries are completely unmonitored by government. Four paragraphs to complete self-negation -- that's rhetorical skill, baby. Although I do appreciate their concern that the quality of the marijuana will not be thoroughly regulated, cough cough.
Add to this the fact that the chamber is arguing against the city government permitting dispensaries because it's unclear how they'll be regulated. If only local governments had some sort of mechanism in place for creating and enforcing regulations.
Transparently bad reasoning from start to finish. What a shock to see that Paul Held serves on the board.
Posts
