Poll Supports Legalization of Marijuana in San Francisco
By Ann Harrison
ah@well.com
As San Francisco city officials hash out a series of proposals to regulate medical cannabis dispensaries, a survey released yesterday suggests that the majority of city voters do not believe that pot clubs pose any problems to civic order.
The poll, conducted by Evans-McDonough on behalf of California NORML, found that 52% of respondent disagreed that medical marijuana dispensaries are out of control and are a major neighborhood nuisance and crime magnet compared to 30% who did.
The poll results stand in sharp contrast to extensive media coverage of neighborhood opposition to dispensaries - and subsequent calls by San Francisco political leaders to limit the number of cannabis clubs.
“Eighty-four percent of San Franciscans think that the number of dispensaries in the city should be determined by the needs of the patients, not the politicians,” said Dale Gieringer, director of California NORML, who announced the poll results on the steps of San Francisco City Hall.
The poll of 400 likely voters found instead that 63% of respondents favor legalizing, taxing and regulating marijuana for general adult use. Gieringer noted that he had recently returned from Holland where marijuana is sold to people over 18 and not considered a problem by authorities. “If they can do it in Amsterdam, we can do it in San Francisco,” said Gieringer.
According to the poll, the vast majority of San Franciscans - 91% - support the use of medical cannabis for people whose doctor recommends it.
The poll also indicates that San Francisco voters opposed punishing marijuana users. Eighty percent of poll respondents did not believe that people convicted of marijuana offenses should go to prison. Despite recent DEA raids against San Francisco dispensaries, 75% felt that the city should deal with marijuana policies locally and not hand them over to the DEA.
“The overall message of the poll is that contrary to hype, San Francisco voters would rather see the legalization of marijuana than the crackdown on dispensaries,” said Gieringer.
Provisions in some dispensary regulation proposals would indeed weed out some dispensary. The proposed regulations would ban on-site consumption of medical cannabis or require dispensaries that allow on-site consumption to be 1,000 feet from all schools and community centers and drug treatment facilities - and 1,000 feet from one another.
The NORML poll indicates, however, that 75% of respondents believe that patients should be able to consume cannabis at dispensaries and 62% supported the concentration of dispensaries in certain neighborhoods.
Caren Woodson, campaign director for Americans For Safe Access (ASA), noted that allowing patients to consume cannabis on site is essential for those patients who do not feel comfortable use cannabis at home and are forbidden to use cannabis in Section 8 public housing.
Woodson added that maps showing the impact of the 1,000 foot regulation would outlaw many existing dispensaries and “effectively blocks out the whole city,” for dispensary locations.
“The idea that if you limit the number of dispensaries you provide the best access is a contradiction in terms,” said Woodson who said patients without access to cars would have limited access to cannabis under such rules. “People with mobility issues would be negatively effected.”
Alex Franco, a medical cannabis patient and ASA representative in San Francisco says restriction on on-site cannabis consumption and the proposed 1,000 foot requirement would impede her ability to use cannabis for pain relief. “I don’t have a car and if I have to take myself across town to smoke cannabis that will worsen my muscle spasms,” said Franco who said patients, not politicians should determine the location of dispensaries in the city.
“I have the right to medicate on site and determine where I go for healthcare providers,” said Franco. She said targeting dispensaries for special restrictions not placed on other medical facilities is “a grave injustice and shows no mercy for patients like myself.”
According to Woodson, ASA is focused on overturning the 1,000 ft requirements now being considered by the Planning Commission. She said ASA also wants the city to make a distinction between dispensaries and patient cooperatives and collectives which are not store front operations and should not be subject to 1,000 foot rules, permit fees and other restrictions considered for dispensaries. “They don’t know the difference between collectives and dispensaries,” said Woodson.
Woodson said ASA is also working to modify proposals that dispensaries follow on an open books policy and be subjected to spot inspections by police. She said the open books policy opens dispensaries up to prosecution by the federal government. As for police access to dispensaries, “the police don’t need to go in, the building inspectors can make sure that the building is fully compliant,” said Woodson.
As for proposed police background checks for dispensary operators included in some proposals, Woodson says background checks are not unusual for permit holders. But she opposed background checks for dispensary employees who may be patients and should not be subjected to such scrutiny.
The San Francisco Planning Commission is set to begin consideration of the proposed dispensary regulations and medical cannabis activist are keenly aware that policy decisions in San Francisco could set precedents for other communities.
“We have an opportunity here to show America how to do this right,” said Bruce Mirkin of the Marijuana Policy Project. “I hope the Board of Supervisors takes this into consideration and does the right thing.”
