A PATIENT'S PERSPECTIVE

As a medical cannabis patient (quadriplegic) fortunate enough to have a
doctor's recommendation for the past five years, I feel compelled to
comment on recent developments in our community regarding the cultivation
and dispensing of medical marijuana.

On April 27 our City Council unfortunately tabled proposed amendments to
the previous 2001 medical cannabis initiative. Their lack of decision has
prompted a voter initiative drive and the rights of patients like myself
have been overlooked and ill-served. I believe this process can be avoided
with reconsideration by the Berkeley City Council.

The facts of the matter are that initiative preparation, signature
gathering and the expense and resources needed require much time and energy.

Because the three existing Berkeley medical dispensaries (and their
patients) are the prime initiators for this project, the needs and
servicing of patients are strained.

I praise these organizations for their continued operation as well as a
past record of success deserving recognition. They have proposed reasonable
amendments the City Council has chosen not to consider: a 72-plant limit
for indoor cultivation, a peer review committee to help regulate and
oversee existing and new dispensaries, and zoning considerations that would
provide city sanctioning for the dispensaries. I worry that a protracted
voter initiative struggle and further ballot measure campaign will
negatively affect myself and other patients.

Opposition to the amendments by the City Council were based on a lack of
information and fear of increased crime.

While 72 plants sounds like a great many, that is already the limit in
neighboring Oakland. The limit is 99 in Santa Cruz, and there is no limit
in San Francisco. What this number of plants might produce as well as how
many times a year is surely both relative and debatable.

Producing 18 pounds worth $90,000, thereby a cause for crime concern could
be possible, but not probable at very many locations in Berkeley, most
certainly not residential ones. Such an operation would be more suited to
warehouses in Oakland and San Francisco. The 72-plant limit is primarily to
protect patients already over the existing 10-plant limit in Berkeley. I
most strenuously object to embedding medical cannabis with increased crime.

One day a few weeks ago three banks in Berkeley were robbed so what should
be done? If Police Chief Roy Meisner deserves commending for our lower
crime rate, I think he is off base suggesting the increased plant limits
may mean increased crime.

And I seriously doubt the armed robbery mentioned at the City Council
meeting was related to medical cannabis.

Three years ago when there were problems at the then University Avenue
dispensary, the now existing dispensaries were instrumental in it's
shutdown and ceasing of operations, also acknowledged by the City Council
and police chief.

The adoption of the amendments would ease patients' concerns and help to
provide a continued secure dispensing of medical cannabis.

The proposed relocation of one dispensary, Cannabis Buyers Cooperative of
Berkeley has been particularly disconcerting to patients, the City Council,
and neighbors of the proposed new location.

As Councilmember Kriss Worthington stated, the adoption of the amendments
should not be related to the contentiousness surrounding CBCB's move. With
all due respect to council members Shirek and Breland, citing the arrested
victims of the war on drugs, whether black or white, does not seem just
cause for limiting or ignoring the needs and rights of medical cannabis
patients.

Because my own mother has the same response I can appreciate Margaret
Breland's faith in her doctor and his prescriptions, but medical cannabis
is most definitely an alternative for so many. Councilmember Dona Spring
best understood the importance of patients' relief from pain.

Three weeks ago before the City Council met, a Daily Planet front page
story characterized the voter initiative as "threatening" the council to
adopt the medical cannabis amendments. I believe "challenge" is more
appropriate. Our elected city officials should reconsider these amendments.
Their adoption would help provide continued safe and secure access for
medical cannabis patients to their medicine by increasing the number of
plants we may grow, and by officially mandating the city working with and
sanctioning existing medical dispensaries. Finally, because of missing
regulation and federal opposition these measures are necessary to help
implement Proposition 215, approved by 86 percent of Berkeley voters.