OAKLAND COUNCIL SHOULD HEED FEDS' WARNINGS ON POT

I supported Oakland's initial foray into the large-scale cannabis
cultivation business because it placed the city in the catbird's seat
in the event of the passage of Proposition 19, the recreational
marijuana use initiative on the November ballot.

Had the measure been approved by voters, the city's plan to allow
industrial-size pot farms, creating a new revenue stream ripe with
tax benefits, would have been a wise decision.

Because even while the Oakland City Council said the measure was
approved for the exclusive use of licensed medical marijuana
dispensaries, the city would certainly have been well positioned to
take advantage had a new law been approved.

But the council's decision to forge on under the claim that large pot
farms fit beneath the aegis of the state's medical marijuana laws is
a bridge too far for federal authorities.

Still, the Oakland City Council moved closer to another ordinance
this week with a plan introduced by Councilwoman Desley Brooks that
would allow five new dispensaries, each with its own industrial-size
pot farms of up to 50,000 square feet.

Federal authorities, asked by City Attorney John Russo to issue an
opinion, sent a letter to Oakland dated Feb. 1, which focused on the
city's original cultivation proposal, brought by councilwoman Rebecca
Kaplan in July.

The Department of Justice "is concerned about the Oakland Ordinance's
creation of a licensing scheme that permits large-scale marijuana
cultivation and manufacturing as it authorizes conduct contrary to
federal law," wrote Melinda Haag, the U.S. attorney for the Northern
District of California.

"Accordingly the department is carefully considering civil and
criminal legal remedies regarding those who seek to set up industrial
marijuana growing warehouses in Oakland pursuant to licenses issued
by the City of Oakland."

After the letter was issued, some members of the council insisted the
council would move forward with the newest proposal, which was sent
to the council's Public Safety committee this week for further review.

Potential economic benefit

Brooks defended the measure, telling a Chronicle reporter she
believes linking the farms to specific dispensaries will bring them
in line with the state's 1996 medical marijuana law. She did not
return calls seeking comment.

But the city's own analysis of the production increase underscores a
much greater economic significance to Oakland: The estimated annual
yield could provide up to one-fifth of the state's medical marijuana demand.

That's not about supplying medicine to Oakland's infirmed citizens.
It's about money - and lots of it.

Federal law enforcement agencies have shown a willingness to look the
other way when it comes to patient-sharecroppers with small grows for
personal use and as barter for services with licensed "club" dispensaries.

But allowing the establishment of five large cannabis farms is a step
that neither state nor federal officials are likely to ignore.

Haag's letter is the first written warning issued by federal
authorities, but marks the third time city officials have been told
that their plan would not fly.

Feds' 'grave concerns'

In December, Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley wrote a
letter expressing surprise that Oakland planned to move forward even
after Prop. 19 failed. "We were told that with respect to the
Ordinance, the Council would wait until the outcome of Prop. 19.
Obviously, Prop. 19 failed to pass. It is my understanding that the
Council is now moving forward with this Ordinance," she wrote.

The letter was written to alert city officials that its ordinance did
not fall under the protection of the state's 1996 medical marijuana
law, O'Malley said.

A week after the November election, federal authorities visited
Oakland City Hall and informed city officials of their "grave
concerns" about the original ordinance, Russo confirmed. Kaplan's
initial proposal placed no size limit on farms.

Russo has endured criticism from former council colleagues for
failing to provide detailed legal guidance, an assertion he denies.
But it seems that Russo has heard the message from federal
authorities loud and clear.

I would hope that council officials heed the warning and come up with
a revised, scaled-down version that yields greater production, meets
the city's needs and falls beneath the radar of federal authorities.