Red Flag Warning expires at 11:00 PM on 5/25, issued at 3:15 PM Ridgecrest, CA

County Supervisors leave medicinal marijuana shop ordinance to voters

Set Text Size SmallSet Text Size MediumSet Text Size LargeSet Text Size X-Large
Share
Updated: 2/22 10:55 am

It's up to voters to decide whether or not medical marijuana cooperatives will have to follow new regulations.

The Kern County Board of Supervisors voted 4 to 1 Tuesday to put a new ordinance on the June ballot. Neither side walked away from the meeting feeling victorious. Co-op opponents don't want pot shops in their backyards. Supporters of the dispensaries feel the ordinance is too restrictive.

The Board of Supervisors heard two hours of passionate pleas. One was from medicinal marijuana patient, Heather Epps.

"I need to live out of pain. I vomit every day, and I am in debilitating pain. I didn't do this for fun. I did this because I am sick," said Epps.

Epps is the president of Kern Citizens for Patient Rights, the group that helped gather more than 17,000 signatures to overturn the supervisors' decision last summer to completely ban pot dispensaries. Tuesday, her message was... the co-ops aren't the problem.

"Has there been one person that's been murdered in our collective here in Kern county? None. But, they have in our streets," said Epps.

After hours of testimony, supervisors voted 4 to 1 to rescind the existing ordinance to ban collectives and put a new measure to voters in the June primary. It restricts where medical marijuana cooperatives can be. They must be at least a mile away from schools, day care centers, and churches. And, there can't be two co-ops within a mile of each other.

Those against co-ops think they're a threat to kids.

"So now you are making an illegal drug legal. It's a worry for all of our children," said Nicole Lynch.

Store front supporters think the ordinance will just make it harder for patients with prescriptions to get their medicine.

"You guys have no clue whatsoever what's going on," Marco Flores, a medical marijuana patient told supervisors. "You guys just decide to write ordinances that are more restrictive to patient access."

The only supervisor to vote 'no' was Ray Watson. He wanted to put both the old ordinance banning pot shops and the new measure restricting co-ops on the June ballot. If the new ordinance passes on June 5th, store front owners who are not within proper zones will have ten days to move or close.


Share
6 Comment(s)
Comments: Show | Hide

Here are the most recent story comments.View All

The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of KGET TV 17 - In the Spirit of the Golden Empire

JoeDaWg - 2/23/2012 8:41 AM
1 Vote
Marijuana has been used for over 5000 years, we spent over 1.3 trillion dollars trying to rid America of this harmless plant and guess what? Its still everywhere. Medical marijuana is a million times safer than prescription drugs so I don't have a problem with it at all. I'd much rather see my neighbors smoking a jay instead of drinking a beer. All the hysteria is nonsense, if your brain is full of "reefer madness" I think its pretty safe to say your too stupid to be taken seriously.

murph56 - 2/23/2012 8:39 AM
1 Vote
Such a great pain reliever then let the doctors and pharmacy control it not the pot dealers at the curbside shops that are growing it in their back yards.

RobtAlan1 - 2/22/2012 9:56 AM
5 Votes
My feeling is if this relieves the pain or just one person suffering from pain this is worth it, and we know this helps thousands of people. Furthermore, why not tax it and profit from the sale? If these facilities lower the price in the community it will end illegal imports and get rid of the crime associated with the illegal trade.

joanna smith - 2/22/2012 7:05 AM
3 Votes
My business was right across the street from the very 1st 'medical marijuana collective' on Gilmore Ave. You know what? I could care less. It did not impact my business at all. What does affect my business are the 'tweekers' that live next door. They make our life a living hell and no one does anything about them, even though everyone at the KCSD seems to know them. Meth is a much bigger problem in this city, county, and state. I train people, and you can tell the difference between an ex-alcoholic, an ex-pothead, and an ex-tweeker immediately. The recovering alcoholic is OK....the ex-pothead is OK....the ex-tweeker is permanently brain-damaged and cannot function at any level. And in some communities, over 50% of the people on SSI are there because of meth use. Yes, you can use meth, fry your brain, and get on SSI because you are considered disabled. By your own hand. That is not what SSI was created for, but there it is. A huge loss of money down the drain because meth is not a big deal. We'd rather use our resources going after something the voters have said should be legal & regulated, like alcohol.

murph56 - 2/22/2012 6:43 AM
2 Votes
I myself will tell someone smoking in a public place when it's posted no smoking to move of put it out since I do not smoke and do not wish to smoke someones elses smoke, now as for pot it has away of floating futher, it will float from one yard to another this is not fair to ones neighbor.Tobacco will also but not as bad and since when does tobacco get a person high? My vote is to close them all and so is most of my families votes.

malcolmkyle - 2/22/2012 2:11 AM
3 Votes
I'm sure we all agreed that smoking tobacco should not be encouraged. Yet we do not threaten tobacco users with arrest and imprisonment. Maybe you believe that it's immoral to use a certain drug. If so, would you care to explain to us why you think that alcohol be exempted from your personal moral condemnation. And even then, you still need to explain why you think it should be a crime to imbibe certain plants, and not others. law enforcement and rehabilitation are mutually exclusive. Would alcoholics seek help for their illness if doing so were tantamount to confessing to criminal activity? Likewise, would putting every incorrigible alcoholic behind bars and saddling them with criminal records prove cost-effective? Prohibition means that these certain plants/concoctions/drugs are sold only by criminals and terrorists, who are heavily armed. This is a direct result of the failed policy of prohibition. - A policy that guarantees that those who sell these certain plants/drugs/concoctions cannot defend their business interests through peaceful and legal channels; a policy that guarantees those same entities the power to bribe and threaten police officers, judges, and politicians, while terrorizing whole neighborhoods. Very few people wish to see an end to prohibition because they desire to experiment with drugs; they can already obtain them 24/7 at a variety of bars, parks, schools and street corners. No, they wish to see proper regulatory-legalization because they are witnessing, just like the rest us, the dangers and utter futility of prohibition. Ending drug prohibition won't be the complete answer to all our drug problems. Just as the end of alcohol prohibition didn't end all the problems associated with alcohol use/abuse/addiction. But it will greatly ameliorate the crime and violence on our streets, and it will lessen the huge burden on our judicial system, while lowering the incentives for corruption in law enforcement and public office.
80°
Clear
Inergize Digital This site is hosted and managed by Inergize Digital.
Mobile advertising for this site is available on Local Ad Buy.