RESIDENTS DIVIDED OVER DISPENSARIES

When it comes to selling marijuana for medical uses legalized in 1996
when California voters passed Proposition 215 Martinez citizens are
roughly divided into two camps: those who consider it to be a
dangerous drug, rightfully considered a Schedule I narcotic by the
federal government and sold for recreational use under the bogus
rubric of illness relief and those who esteem the plant for its
medicinal value and think it should be compassionately available to
certified patients, if not legalized entirely and taxed like
cigarettes and alcohol.

The divide is reminiscent of another hot button topic long disputed
amongst the Martinez electorate: whether or not the City Council be
allowed to form a Redevelopment Agency.

That 50-plus year conflict began dissolving the moment Governor Jerry
Brown proposed eliminating the state's RDA in order to balance the
budget and redress abuses made by some agencies.

While it is still unknown if the federal government will play a
similar role as Brown in the cannabis debate by overturning its legal
status, in Martinez the two camps remain diametrically opposed.

At the February 16 Council meeting, 55 members of the public addressed
the Council to proffer their positions on allowing a dispensary in
Martinez.

Lifelong resident and local business owner Scott Busby spoke about his
belief that the City should "forge ahead." Busby has indicated his
interest in applying for one of the dispensary licenses, should the
current ordinance under review be approved.

"I raised two children here 26, 27 both UC Davis graduates.
Fortunately no severe medical issues. But, I am a very open-minded
citizen. Times have changed, it is not the '60, '70s or the '80s,"
Busby told the Council and capacity audience. "There is need, there is
use for compassionate care, medical use of marijuana. It's okay if a
city or a community takes the torch and leads ahead. Location,
operation, the right dispensary, the right facility, the right
management, the holistic uses and services they can offer their
patients, their clients. We're not in the dark; we're not in the
clouds. We need to open our minds, be compassionate of those in need.
There are benefits to go along with this. Not just the City stepping
ahead and saying it's okay. It's okay to forge on ... be logical, be
sharp. If this dispensary is approved over the next weeks or whenever,
it's important again the location, the review, the process. It would
be a healing type of facility. It brings jobs. Any facility of any
size will bring 20, 30, 40 jobs. It does bring revenue to the City.
It's not bad to be open-minded."

Later in the meeting, a woman who identified herself as Sue Perez
expressed her views that medicinal use of cannabis is questionable,
there are other ways to heal thyself, she said.

"I do have compassion for people who have pain, I have a lot of pain
too ... I have degenerate joint disease. I don't see the need to use
any drugs at all, there are other ways to manager your pain. You can
eat right, you can exercise ... I know people that have gotten cured
from cancer by eating right - they just started eating right. A lot of
you people are in pain because you eat a lot of junk," said Perez to
the audience. "To me, people who smoke or use marijuana as medication,
they just use it because they want to get high, that's what I think,
because there are other ways to manage your pain. You can use massage,
acupuncture. It doesn't cost that much to eat right, and exercise
doesn't cost anything either. ... It has worked for me, I don't need
any medication. I do a lot of hard work, and if I overwork my joints,
yeah, I'm in pain, but you know what, I don't need medication.

I just want to put that out there. I'm not for the dispensary; I don't
believe that we need that. I think it's an illegal drug and you should
just wait until it is legalized if it ever does get legalized.
Alcohol is legal, that's why people drink. I don't drink either. I
don't think it's needed."

On Monday, Mayor Rob Schroder said he would open another public
hearing period on the subject should there be enough audience members
in attendance who had not spoken at the February 16 meeting.