COUNCIL DENIES PLAN TO REGULATE MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES

Moratorium Extended Another 180 Days

SOUTHFIELD - A proposed plan to regulate facilities where authorized
caregivers can grow medical marijuana and provide it to their
patients was shot down by the Southfield City Council Jan. 18 after a
public hearing drew many concerned residents.

Some 60 people filled the audience in council chambers, 16 of whom
spoke out against the proposed plan, including two attorneys, one of
whom directly threatened to sue the city.

Council voted unanimously against the proposed regulatory plan -
which would have limited such facilities to districts zoned light
industrial with strict parameters, allowing for only 20 possible
locations in the city - citing a need for more research and a clearer
vision of how the law is affecting other communities. Council also
voted 6-1 to extend a moratorium on the matter another 180 days.
Councilmember Sid Lantz was the lone dissenter, calling marijuana
"poison" and expressing his lack of support for the law altogether.

But 63 percent of Michigan voters approved the legalization of
marijuana for medical purposes in November of 2008, including 69
percent of Southfield residents.

The law was ambiguous, however, leaving some residents unsure of what
they'd voted for and cities unaware of how to control the effects of
legalization.

"When you think of medical marijuana, you think it's going to be
dispensed by pharmacies as well as being controlled by the FDA," said
Southfield resident Noah King. "I believe when we first voted on
this, a lot of people had the perception that this would be
controlled by the federal government. It has now fallen onto Southfield city."

Sabina Heller, a resident of the city for 45 years, said she was
misled to vote in favor of the law. She said she supported the use of
marijuana "for cancer or someone who has severe pain, not someone who
has a headache."

"The ballot was ambiguous," said resident Pamela Gerald. "I think
they voted for the privilege for people to have it for their
debilitating illnesses, but I don't think they voted to have 20-32
(facilities) in their community."

Walter Mison expressed having "deep reservations because of the fear
of misuse and abuse."

John Smith, whose wife is a hospice nurse, said that while he's "very
much aware of the value of marijuana, because there are many patients
who cannot get comfort from any other (source)," the ordinance as
laid out made it difficult for those to grow it out of their home for
a family member who is sick. He advised council to wait a bit longer.

"I think it would be smarter to wait until the law shakes out," Smith
said. "The law was not well drawn out. I think the moratorium - just
wait and see - would be the smartest approach."

Stephanie English said she voted in favor of the law but is worried
about the city's resources and ability to regulate.

"I'm concerned about the stretch of resources when it comes to
enforcement-wise," English said. "If we're not adding to the police
force, who is going to be responsible for the regulation? ... It does
stretch and drain the police resources. ... As a taxpayer, I've got
to look at the infrastructure as a whole and what's going to happen
with the future landscape."

Gail Williams-Nichols said she was completely against the city
allowing facilities to distribute marijuana to patients.

"The police can't be everywhere, and we can't keep hiring people,"
she said. "Then you get the criminal activity that will come with it,
which is only hand-in-hand with anything called drugs. I'm totally
opposed to this and I think we should keep it out of Southfield.
Stick it somewhere else. ... Where we don't have to get (broken)
into. And robbed. And beaten. And everything else that goes along with drugs."

Monday's meeting was the ninth one held publicly by city officials
discussing the medical marijuana issue since a moratorium was issued last July.

"This falls upon cities to try to weave our way through this," said
City Councilman Don Fracassi. "The voters unintentionally put it in
our hands to try to regulate and control it. I give our Department of
Planning director and our legal staff a lot of credit for weaving
through this thing and coming up with a proposal. ... I think that in
good conscience, everyone has studied it as thoroughly as they could.
We have enough situations in our city where police have to react to
and EMS have to react to without babysitting all these dispensaries."

City Councilwoman Janna Garrison said something has to be done to
deal with the issue, as it was voted into law by the people more than
two years ago.

"We have to get this right," Garrison said. "I don't want to have the
conversation anymore about whether marijuana is a good drug or a
poisonous drug - that is not the fight anymore. ... People who are
suffering deserve to have this medication to help them."

Lantz was the most vocal of council members, focusing his remarks on
his opposition to the law itself, calling marijuana a "dangerous
drug," the legalization of which - even for medical purposes - will
lead to an increase in crime and drain the city's resources, he said.

"This city is going to go to hell," Lantz said, angrily denouncing
the law and accusing his fellow council members of pushing the issue.
"They must have a motive. Something is wrong with this city and it's
going to get worse. (Southfield is) the center of it all? We're going
to be the center of the pot regimes in the state."

Lantz also challenged attorney Neil Rockind, who spoke up during the
time set aside for public comments, reporting that he'd filed a
lawsuit against Bloomfield Township and wouldn't hesitate to do so in
Southfield if the city violated the law.

"Sue us," Lantz said to Rockind.