18 Attachments - Laserfiche WebLink

natural choice and best-suited agency to address the regulation of medical cannabis dispensing collectives. Law enforcement agen- cies are ill-suited for handling such matters, having little or no expertise in health and medical affairs. Examples of responsible agencies and officials: • Angels Camp -City Administrator • Atascadero -Planning Commission • Citrus Heights -City Manager • Los Angeles -Planning Department • Plymouth -City Administrator • San Francisco -Department of Public Health • Selma -City Manager • Visalia -City Planner ARBITRARY CAPS ON THE NUMBER OF DISPENSARIES CAN BE 000NTER- PRODUCTIVE Reason: Policymakers do not need to set arbi trary limitations on the number of dispensing collectives allowed to operate because, as with other services, competitive market forces and consumer choice will be decisive. Dispensaries which provide quality care and patient services to their memberships will flourish, while those that do not will fail. Capping the number of dispensaries limits consumer choice, which can result in both decreased quality of care and less affordable medicine. Limiting the number of dispensing collectives allowed to operate may also force patients with limited mobility to travel farther for access than they would otherwise need to. Artificially limiting the supply for patients can result in an inability to meet demand, which in turn may lead to such undesirable effects as lines outside of dispensaries, increased prices, and lower quality medicine. Examples of cities and counties without numerical caps on dispensaries: • Dixon • Elk Grove • Fort Bragg • Placerville • Ripon • Selma • Tulare • Calaveras County • Kern County • Los Angeles County • City and County of San Francisco. RESTRICTIONS ON WHERE DISPENSARIES CAN LOCATE ARE OFTEN UNNECESSARY AND CAN CREATE BARRIERS TO ACCESS Reason: As described in this report, regulated dispensaries do not generally increase crime or bring other harm to their neighborhoods, regardless of where they are located. And since for many patients travel is difficult, cities and counties should take care to avoid unnec- essary restrictions on where dispensaries can locate. Patients benefit from dispensaries being convenient and accessible, especially if the patients are disabled or have conditions that limit their mobility. It is unnecessary and burdensome for patients and dispensaries, to restrict dispensaries to industrial corners, far away from public transit and other services. Depending on a city's pop- ulation density, it can also be extremely detri- mental to set excessive proximity restrictions (to schools or other facilities) that can make it impossible for dispensaries to locate any- where within the city limits. It is important to balance patient needs with neighborhood concerns in this process. PATIENTS BENEFIT FROM ON-SITE CONSUMPTION AND PROPER VENTILATION SYSTEMS Reason: Dispensaries that allow members to consume medicine on-site have positive psy- chosocial health benefits for chronically ill people who are otherwise isolated. On-site consumption encourages dispensary members to take advantage of the support services that improve patients' quality of life and, in some cases, even prolong it. Researchers have shown that support groups like those offered For more information, see www.AmericansForSa(eAccess-org or contaR the ASA office at 1-888-929-4367 or 510-251-1856- 15