CITY CALLS FOR POT SHOP REGULATION

Dispensaries Need Consistent Oversight, Local Officials Say

SAN MATEO -- The many battles raging in California over medical
marijuana are fueled by a basic disagreement between federal law,
which prohibits the possession of cannabis altogether, and state law,
which has allowed the selective use of medical marijuana for more
than a decade.

But the divide between the two positions -- an ideological chasm
which has resulted in the raids of dozens of medical marijuana
dispensaries across the state -- has no bearing on the recent raids
of three dispensaries in the city of San Mateo, local officials and
law enforcement say.

"There's no question in the mind of anybody in law enforcement that
these (dispensaries) were operating way outside the bounds of any
reasonable interpretation of state law," said San Mateo City Manager
Arne Croce on Friday.

The assessment, echoed by the San Mateo County District Attorney's
Office and local law enforcement, counters the widespread
condemnation of the raids by medical marijuana advocates, who defend
the rights of medical marijuana patients under state law to open
cooperatives. Such cannabis clubs have the right to serve eligible
residents who sign up as members of the cooperatives, the advocates contend.

But the three medical marijuana dispensaries raided on Wednesday by
the DEA were not maintained as cooperatives "but clearly operating as
for-sale pot shops," Croce said, including a fourth dispensary which
reportedly closed on the day of the raids.

Dispensary Owner's Story

But Jhonrico Carrnshimba -- the 27-year-old director of Patients
Choice Resource Cooperative, one of the three raided dispensaries --
said he took great pains to ensure that his cannabis club was
operating above board.

He hired a San Francisco attorney famous for representing medical
marijuana patients to ensure that his operation was legally
ship-shape; he made overtures to city officials, city police, the
Sheriff's Office and the District Attorney's Office, inviting
representatives from each group over for a visit; and he went out of
his way, he said, to convert his cannabis club into a resource for
the sick and suffering, offering patients support groups and
educational books and videos about alternative health and fitness.

"I was trying to make a center ... where mature patients could
collectively meet and give them support services," said Carrnshimba.
"We were following state law to a T."

Patients Choice was established as a true cooperative, said
Carrnshimba. The group was able to supply some 800 registered members
with cannabis through the help of its own members, who are allowed
under state law to grow a limited supply of medical marijuana, he said.

Most of the proceeds were paid back to the members in order to pay
for the expense of growing the marijuana plants, and the occasional
profits that did surface were used to supply low-income members with
free cannabis, said Carrnshimba.

"(The city) knew exactly what was going on," he added, explaining
that he informed city administrators of his operation from the moment
he applied for a business tax certificate, the business license which
the city requires.

However, administrators were kept in the dark regarding Patients
Choice, said Croce. The city's finance department, which issued
Carrnshimba the certificate, was never informed that Patients Choice
was a medical marijuana dispenser, he said.

The certificate, issued July 13, 2006, contradicts Carrnshimba's
assertions that Patients Choice communicated openly with the city,
and also hints that the dispensary may have operated outside of state law.

The certificate makes no mention of marijuana but states that the
group offers "consultation/herbal medicine." Under "ownership type,"
the document states that Patients Choice is a Limited Liability
Corporation, which is a for-profit business under state law. Only
corporations registered with the state as a nonprofit can claim
protection from prosecution.

The three additional dispensaries in San Mateo also applied for
business tax certificates, but they were all denied under the
guidance of the City Attorney, said Croce. The pot clubs described
themselves on their license applications alternately as "social
services;" pain management;" and "retail sales of vitamins and herbs."

Productive Dialogue Needed

Croce said the county and its cities must channel the controversy
surrounding the raids into a productive dialogue over the
distribution of medical marijuana on the Peninsula.

"This issue really needs countywide attention," he said. "We need to
get law enforcement, city attorneys and district attorneys together
to try to come up with at least some common guidelines."

Since state voters approved Proposition 215, which legalized the use
of medical marijuana in 1996, the county has not set up a mechanism
for medical marijuana distribution -- despite a 66 percent approval
for the measure by county voters.

Two Peninsula cities have created their own regulations. Last week,
Colma's city council unanimously passed an ordinance banning
dispensaries from the town, while last year, South San Francisco
outlawed storefront pot clubs. However, that measure approved
allowing patients to collectively grow cannabis at least 500 feet
from residential areas.

"You can see in the way that these two different cities are trying to
cope with the issue that some countywide effort needs to go into
coming up with some guidelines," said Croce. "There's not any consistency."

That inconsistency troubles San Mateo Mayor Jack Matthews, who
worries that San Mateo has become "a kind of island within the
county, where it's the only place where you can buy marijuana for
palliative care."

"Absolutely, 100 percent, four-square -- I am behind the use of
marijuana for medical purposes," said Matthews. "If (dispensaries)
are conforming to the law, they have a right to be here ... but if
medical marijuana's legal, it should be available in other cities as well."

Taking the Case to the Council

The county's Board of Supervisors may take up the issue of
regulation, but first a public discussion of medical marijuana will
take place in the city of San Mateo.

When the City Council meets Tuesday, Bay Area medical marijuana
advocates plan to converge on City Hall to urge council members to
adopt either a resolution pledging to protect medical marijuana
patients and providers or a resolution prohibiting local law
enforcement from cooperating with the DEA on actions against medical
marijuana. The advocates will be joined by Carrnshimba.

City Councilwoman Carole Groom said Friday that she imagines most
residents will have the same concerns about the presence of medical
marijuana dispensaries in their community: "That the business is
licensed and that the business is legitimate."

If the county or the city can settle on "a regulatory procedure to
follow and if those businesses follow it, then I think that people
would feel better."

A public debate on medical marijuana in the city and county, she
said, must begin sooner than later.

"Let's figure out a way to make (dispensaries) legitimate so people
have some relief from the terrible diseases they're fighting," she
said. "We ought to be satisfied that loved ones who are suffering
have recourse."