Examples -

LTL Example #1 - "Hi, I am _______________, a constituent in your district. I wanted to let you know that I oppose SB 1531, which would require childproof packaging, as well as allow cities and local governments to outright ban dispensaries has legs in Salem. If passed, this bill would effectively negate HB 3460 in places where dispensaries have already had a tough time setting up shop. Dispensaries outside of Multnomah County are vulnerable to having to duke out their right to exist within their own city. Allowing local governments to circumvent the intention of HB 3460 will lead to a medical cannabis scene that looks a lot like California, where local governments and dispensary owners have been duking it out for years. Furthermore, allowing for local governments to ban dispensaries increases the possibility that the federal government would work with those localities to raid dispensary owners that try to withstand those bans. This is why we need all dispensary owners and stakeholders in the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program to contact their representatives in Salem, and let them know that the State of Oregon has decided that cannabis is medicine. Local governments driven by ideological viewpoints, and political agendas, shouldn't be allowed to deny patients equal access to a medicine their doctor (and the State of Oregon) says works for them.

Hello Fellow DPFOR members,

Just a quick note on possible changes to SB-1531 regarding the County and City banning bill being submitted during this short legislation session. ProCBC sat down and talked with Rob Bovett (Associations of Counties) and Scott Winkles (League of Oregon Cities) to listen and understand their intent and purpose of the legislation. Overall, it is a means to save time, cost, and litigation in the State Courts on the issue of "banning of MMFs." The meeting was productive and follow-up on additional changes to SB-1531 will be on ProCBC's list this week in Salem. We are meeting with Oregon Senators and Representatives this week in reference to possible impacts on the role out of HB-3460 / ORS 475.300 et al and the pending rules from the Oregon Health Authority (OHA). If you have any specific concerns on SB-1531 or the implementation of ORS 475.300 et al, please let us know at ProCBC@live.com.

Thanks,

Paul & Emily

ProCBC

Hey all,

I know everyone is concerned as am I about SB1531 so here are some thoughts. I really don't expect Sen. Prozanski to let this bill get out of committee. However if it does get a hearing we should try to get the changes Laird suggested. We might not be successful but it could really slow the process. Remember all we have to do is hold it up long enough in the Senate that there would not be enough time to get through a floor vote and then to the House especially if we can get Barker to hold it up in House Judiciary. Then we would be golden and it will remain in committee upon adjournment.

With respect to 3460. The common perception in Salem is that no bills will be considered for 3460 until 2015 session which will give the system time to work and highlight the needed changes. This has a lot to do with the mechanics of passing a bill that requires adjustment to the rules. Secondly, time is so limited in the short session and Kitzhaber just threw a potential wrench in the works with his ultimatum about the I-5 bridge, that I don't think there is time. Of course we could gut and stuff 1531 with some changes to 3460 but it is a lot of negotiating in a very short time and we are a little behind in getting our fixes down and ready to submit as a bill and as i said above, messing with 3460 could cause the rules to need adjusting which could impact the accepting of applications and issuing of licenses.

Again this is a SHORT session and most deadlines for submitting bills have already passed or are so limited it will be tough to get anything introduced. There will be some more bills dropped but for our issue (with the exception of 3460 adjustments) I think we are okay.

At this time however, we have no one committed to being in Salem to do this work. Several of us will be talking to legislators but no one is on the ground actually "walking the halls." And, at this point, after last session, there is no interest in committing to this work without adequate compensation and a clear idea of what needs to be done other than defeat 1531. This session will move very fast and if we want to do anything proactive it will take someone in Salem working hard everyday for the next six weeks. To do what we have been discussing, someone has to drop what they are doing and get started yesterday.

Finally, I think there have been some very good thoughts about fixes for 3460 and I think this is where we need to concentrate some resources. The testing issue right now seems about to put the brakes on the whole thing and as others have pointed out there are some significant issues that need addressed.

So those are my thoughts.

Don''t forget the event Compassionate Oregon is hosting Thursday night in McMinnville. Visit CompassionateOregon.org for more information or visit our facebook page.

anthony taylor

Hello Fellow Contributors,

Just a short note on what is taking place in Salem this week. ProCBC was at the capitol today meeting with Senator Floyd Prozanski (District 4) and Representative Peter Buckley (District 5). In addition, we were able to speak briefly with the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) and the League of Oregon Cities (LOC). These conversations centered around SB-1531 and possible related amendments to the original submission of the Senate Bill. In short, SB-1531 says, "...Specifies that governing body of city or county may regulate or restrict operation of medical marijuana facility, prohibit registration of medical marijuana facility, or regulate, restrict or prohibit storing or dispensing of marijuana by facility legally authorized to store or dispense marijuana..." After talking with our Oregon legislatures it appears as if SB-1531 in its original form is unlikely to progress and has a low probability of moving forward. The AOC and LOC have put forward additional items to! the original submission of SB-1531 which have caused angst to our industry.

One such item was adding "preschools" to the definition of schools for the 1,000 foot exclusionary rule listed under OHA rule 333-008-1040, (3)(C). Again, the probability of SB-1531 going forward is very low and appears to be on its way to a slow and dignified failure. On another note, our legislatures and AOC/Bovett and LOC/Winkles are committed to working with ProCBC members on compiling any remedies that my need to be addressed regarding the role out of HB-3460 (ORS 475.300 et al and chapter 333 Administrative Rules Division Eight pertaining to medical marijuana facilities) in the 2015 legislative session. ProCBC had a good day of walking the halls in Salem Capitol today. ProCBC appreciates the support of its members and the overall support of Oregon Cannabis Industries as we move forward.

your friends at

ProCBC

Got one?   !PLEASE!   Post It!

You can hear it in their voices as they try to address mounting local concerns about the imminent proliferation of pot shops under the state's new laws allowing medical marijuana dispensaries. You can see it in Senate Bill 1531 , which would honor the right of cities and counties to enact "reasonable" limits on dispensaries within their borders.

That bill, now steaming toward the Senate floor with bipartisan backing, uses the word reasonable five times in one paragraph alone, as if repetition could make it so. Yet cities and counties will remain unreasonably vulnerable to the state's inattention and weak oversight, unless lawmakers go a lot further to give communities more say over the medical-themed pot shops coming to town.

This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed to affirm local governments' authority to regulate (but not ban) medical marijuana dispensaries. The goal is to resolve a legal dispute between the state lawyers and advocates who believe cities and counties have no business regulating medicine, and the local officials who say, "Um, are you kidding me?"

This compromise bill, SB1531, would forbid Medford, Gresham and other communities from banning dispensaries altogether. Instead, it would clarify that local governments do have a reasonable say over the time, place and manner in which dispensaries operate.

"Something," said Sen. Jeff Kruse, R-Roseburg, "is better than nothing."

Kruse is right: The new rules would be modestly more respectful of local communities' wishes than the status quo. Yet they don't resolve the legal confusion. If this bill passes as it stands, Oregon lawmakers may still be hanging cities and counties out to dry.

For starters, it's not settled whether cities and counties could enforce temporary moratoriums on dispensaries while they figure out a prudent approach. It's not clear whether a city could enact zoning rules that are strict enough to limit marijuana dispensaries to, say, a couple within city limits rather than a dozen. The rules for the marketing of marijuana products aimed at teenagers are inadequate, and dispensaries could still set up shop near preschools.

Needless to say, local attorneys, sheriffs and council members are getting nervous. They're the ones who take the heat and clean up the mess. They're the ones who will be blamed when a half-dozen dispensaries (ones with wink-nod names that sell lollipops as "medicine") open too close to home.

I think lawmakers should tweak the bill to expressly acknowledge the right of local governments to enact temporary moratoriums and to enforce strict rules that are just shy of a ban. This might reduce the number of lawsuits over the proper definition of "reasonable." It would also more fairly reflect dispensaries' dual de facto role, under current law, as a source of alternative medicine *and* recreational pot.

"We have members who are welcoming these dispensaries with open arms, even though Oregon has created the weakest regulatory system in the nation," says Rob Bovett, legal counsel for the Association of Oregon Counties. "We have lots of cities and counties that are saying, 'Fine,' and I'm fine with that. We'll defend them. But we also have members that are saying, 'Whoa, not so fast.' "

Lawmakers have the thankless job of trying to get ahead of the next legalization initiative while finding the right policy approach toward a plant that is accepted as a medicine, semi-tolerated as a habit and outlawed as an illegal street drug. This is no easy task, and they deserve credit for taking it on.

But I fear that they are so focused on finding a conservative approach to legalizing recreational marijuana that they will get careless on medical marijuana. This isn't fair to the communities that have minimal resources for law enforcement or that have seenwidespread abuses of the medical marijuana program: Jackson County, for example, has a reported ratio of one medical marijuana card for every 28 residents .

It also isn't fair to communities trying to minimize known risks. As Beaverton city attorney Bill Kirby told lawmakers in written testimony last week, these risks include "that the facilities inherently operate in violation of current federal law, their operations involve large amounts of cash, and their principal product (medical marijuana) is identical to ordinary marijuana, making the marijuana (and the cash on premises) a target or motive for criminal activity."

Giving Oregon cities and counties the ability to adapt to this fast-changing landscape on their own terms, in a more cautious and incremental way, may not be exactly what marijuana advocates have in mind. But it would be a lot more respectful of communities' needs.

You might even call it reasonable.

SOURCE >> Oregon lawmakers want so badly to seem reasonable on pot -- by Susan Nielsen

back to [ Top of Page ]