Marijuana on the city's agenda again as council considers strict rules in light of Proposition 64

By Ed Martin, The Leader Editor

The debate over marijuana continues at Tuesday night’s regular city council meeting as Police Chief Darrell Smith seeks guidance from the city’s elected leaders as how to deal with what appears to be a statewide effort to approve recreational use of marijuana in California.

While it seems as if city leaders want to build a wall around the city to keep marijuana out – and require Mexican drug cartels pay for it – all puns aside, they may not have a choice in the matter, particularly if voters approve a measure on the Nov. 8 ballot which would figuratively tear down those imaginary walls.

Lemoore City Council Sept. 20 Agenda

Proposition 64, also known as the Adult Use Marijuana Act (AUMA) is on the ballot Nov. 8, and in a nutshell, if passed by voters, AUMA would legalize the possession of up to 28.5 grams of marijuana, up to eight grams of marijuana in the form of concentrated cannabis (edibles), and up to six living marijuana plants. Cities will be allowed to add to or create additional regulations, and Prop. 64 would also impose sales taxes of 15 percent. Cities would also be entitled to implement additional taxes.

While Lemoore officials continue to take advantage of their ability to create additional regulations as to the cultivation and use of marijuana, they will consider on Tuesday night, City Ordinance No. 2016, a measure amending its own code in regards to medical and recreational marijuana. City councilmembers will consider a first reading of the ordinance presented by Smith, and If approved Tuesday, the ordinance will be considered again at its second reading at the Oct. 4 council meeting.

Back in January, Lemoore leaders voted 4-1 to prohibit marijuana cultivation, delivery and dispensaries within the city limits. They also took a hard line against California’s progressive trend toward regarding the recreational and medicinal use of marijuana favorably.

However, according to polls, and an analysis by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), Prop. 64 is likely to pass with 60 percent of the vote.

While Lemoore continues to set up roadblocks to recreational use, if the public passes Prop. 64, Lemoore will be required to revise its strict regulations against the sale of marijuana, as well as the dispensing, delivery and cultivation within city limits.

Lemoore’s neighbor to the west, Coalinga, has already taken action, but in a different direction, approving commercial marijuana cultivation with city limits including selling some of its property – the city’s dormant prison, Claremont Custody Center, to Ocean Grown Extracts for $4.1 million. Ocean Grown will turn the former facility into a medical cannabis oil extraction plant.

If AUMA passes, Lemoore will be required to allow indoor growing for personal use. The measure authorizes cities to “reasonably regulate” indoor cultivation of marijuana in private residences and ban outdoor cultivation of marijuana entirely, unless it becomes federally legalized. State law would allow an individual to grow six plants per residence.

The local ordinance would prohibit commercial cultivation, processing, marijuana delivery and dispensaries. Those wanting to light up in Lemoore must do so only in the privacy of their homes.

“California seems poised to show its blue state credentials in the fall,” said Mark Baldassare, an analysist with the PPIC. “Voters today are signaling their early support for Democratic statewide candidates, tax initiatives, and marijuana legalization.”

Baldassare said that a majority (60%) of likely voters say marijuana use should be legal, with 37 percent in opposition.

It’s estimated that the passage of Proposition 64 would generate about $1 billion in new taxes annually, which would be directed toward substance abuse prevention and treatment.

The City of Lemoore, if it so chooses, could also decide to tax marijuana locally, but is unlikely to do so.

Earlier this month, Smith’s comprehensive staff report on Sept. 6, left little doubt as to where he stood on the issue. He cited the strong opposition of California’s law enforcement community – every major state law enforcement association is actively opposing the AUMA, he stated in the report. Key opponents included the California Police Chiefs Association, California State Sheriffs Association, California Peace Officers Association, California Narcotics Association, and numerous local organizations and individual officials.

Comments powered by Disqus