Front Page  »  

Gibson, Hill, Tribune got it wrong

November 5, 2015
Dan Carpenter 6

San Luis Obispo Councilman Dan Carpenter

OPINION By DAN CARPENTER

After observing most of the public hearing including staff presentation, public comment, and deliberation by the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, I believe the majority made the right decision in upholding the appeal of the Planning Commission to allow the dispensary.

Let me be very clear, this is not about the health benefits of using marijuana, but rather about public safety surrounding this brick and mortar location. Regardless of whether all land use/zoning policies are met by the applicant, your elected leaders always have the discretionary authority to deny a project if the safety of the community is at risk.

To not have used it in this case would have been irresponsible.

After listening to the testimony from the most respected law enforcement officials in our community, Sheriff Ian Parkinson, District Attorney Dan Dow, Santa Maria Police Chief Ralph Martin among others, Supervisors Adam Hill and Bruce Gibson ignored the safety concerns and digressed to their ideological agendas.

Sheriff Parkinson was very clear about not having the resources to adequately service this area at the fringe of our county if a dispensary were to open. Chief Martin expressed his concern regarding the potential impacts of the dispensary being on the border of his city, and District Attorney Dow illuminated the significant prosecutorial challenges his department would face should this move forward.

Every active or former law enforcement official that spoke, petitioned the board to hold off on allowing this use until the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, recently signed by Gov. Jerry Brown and due to take effect Jan. 1, 2016, is fully implemented with the necessary agencies, information systems, and regulations.

However, Hill and Gibson were salivating at the opportunity to move forward their agenda in spite of the professional testimony and demonstration of facts substantiating the risks. Their denial of the potential safety risks is complete ineptness and a dereliction of duty. It was an embarrassment to see them argue with the experience and professional acumen of our top law enforcement officials.

It’s obvious Hill and Gibson’s support for our pubic safety staff only holds true when they’re in cadence with the Hill/Gibson agenda.

After hours of testimony and common sense rationale from the other three supervisors, Hill and Gibson would still not break ranks from the Tribune editorial staff’s recommendation to allow the use. None of them acknowledged or took into consideration the potential for significant crime in the surrounding neighborhoods and communities.

The Tribune, Hill and Gibson all got it wrong.

Dan Carpenter is a San Luis Obispo councilman and a candidate for the District 3 San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisor’s seat.

Find out what your neighbors think, like CalCoastNews on Facebook.


Loading...
Subjects:                             
Related:


61 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I usually want to ask people with anti weed biases, why is alcohol OK with you? I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I do fear the drunk driving industry in this county that ‘leading citizens’ call tasting rooms. It can be pretty tough to get through Higuera on the sidewalk at night without some pubescent alcoholic spouting off or trying to provoke a confrontation. So Dan, Admiral Parkinson, are you looking for ways to reduce crime? What credibility can the Sherriff have on this without an opposition to every new liquor license? All I see is the proliferation of the drunkenness industry from SB to Paso. There is a proven correlation between the use of alcohol and violent crime. There is NOT such a correlation for ‘patients’ or even outright stoners. There is not a single case of cannabis overdose death. Look up the NIH stats on alcohol. I just don’t get it. 1950 called, they want their mores back.


0

Coincidently, last Tuesday night at our council meeting I asked for a majority of my colleagues to join me in directing staff to come back with a zoning overlay for our downtown core to limit the number of alcohol outlets. None of them would join me in my request. I agree alcohol crime is out of control and needs to be addressed. However, we have limited options at the local level.


0

Alcohol is big money, so any attempt to limit the number of alcohol outlets will fail. I think we tried that back in the 1920’s. So what you’re saying is you want to reduce the number of alcohol outlets but deny even a single dispensary? Complete hypocrisy, probably fueled by political ambitions.


0

I agree with you, for the most part. Drinking is stylish if it’s from tastings at our local wineries and breweries; but if your drink of choice is in a brown bag, you’re a loser. Total hypocrisy. So many deaths on our roads are caused by impaired drivers, and it confounds me how many people still don’t get that Impaired Driving = Russian Roulette. I’d chalk it up to the Darwin Theory, except that impaired drivers often take innocent victims with them.


The underlying question is why do people in our society have such an overwhelming urge to medicate themselves? What is it about reality that we can’t bear? Compared to other countries, we have so much to be thankful for. Yet as a society, we numb ourselves. I fear that this will lead to complete apathy, and trust me, there are people in power who would love nothing more than having the majority of Americans high. So go ahead and drink, smoke, shoot up; whatever, it’s your body. Just please stay off the road and out of the polling booth!


0

Very mature comment. Next time you need the DA or the Sheriff, call Hill or Gibson.


0

need them for what? to write a report?


0

Very mature comments by you as well, Dan. Looks like you won’t be sitting in a supervisor’s chair anytime soon.


0

oneofadozen…..your comments are inconsequential when you hide behind an alias.


0

We already have a mentally unhinged Supervisor who writes nonsensical letters to newspapers and has outbursts in public forums. Replacing that guy with one who gets angry at posts on online forums doesn’t sound like progress.


0

So we should all change our accounts to our real names to make comments to you, Dan? Would you like to see our drivers licenses too? Your immaturity in your response isn’t winning you any votes.


0

MajorityFan you welcome to submit your own opinion piece on this subject to one of the emails to the right.


You are not welcome to hound or personally attack someone, especially by name with a anonymous to the public account.

You are in the top 5 users having personal attack comments being deleted.


Chill.


0

I agree with you, Dan. Some people don’t understand that there is a cause and effect whenever a new permit is given, whether it’s for a bar, a dispensary, a concert venue, a daycare facility, a shelter, etc, etc. There are only so many law enforcement officers available, especially in the outlying areas of our county. It’s just a fact, whether one is for, against, or neutral about the subject.


0

Dan: I am sorely disappointed with your opinion piece, and apparently your views on legal cannabis sales. The vote by the majority of the Board, with input from the Sheriff’s Department had absolutely nothing to do with “public safety” at all, but more about the world viewpoint of the conservative mindset that Marijuana is some sort of “devil drug” that has to be stopped at all costs.


We are talking about a plant, a biologically natural substance that can grow very easily, can be consumed safely with no recorded history of anyone ever dying of an overdose. The medical benefits have been extensively documented, and if the arcane federal classification of a Schedule 1 Drug is ever changed, more medical research will show even more benefits that can help a huge number of people with a very wide range of medical issues, and will do so without the known dangerous side effects of most pharmaceutical products.


The denying of the permit is just another attempt at controlling a situation or product that you have a philosophical difference of opinion on. The Sheriff’s Department does not want to see any legal operation of cannabis in this county, in a huge part due to the history of the department’s interaction with previous operations (see the comments by Charles Lynch) and by not speaking up, there would have been a tacit approval implied.


Dan, by your agreeing with Lynn Compton, Debbie Arnold and Frank Mecham on this subject, you have uncovered and exposed your own conservative roots. As much as you like to tout your independence and ability to reason on various issues, we really don’t need a 4-1 majority of conservatives on the County Board of Supervisors. Stick a fork in, you’re done.


0

So Bob….are Marx, Ashbaugh, and Christianson conservatives also for not allowing the use in our city? Trying to understand your rationale. If you would have read carefully my beginning comments, you would know this is not about the medical benefits of cannabis. Please stick to the facts instead of trying to pigeon hole me. Just because you don’t agree or understand my reasoning doesn’t negate it’s existence.


0

Dan, you’re going after your attackers but you’re not responding to the substance of overwhelming number of comments that basically laugh at the charade of this decision being a public safety issue.


“Sheriff Parkinson was very clear about not having the resources to adequately service this area at the fringe of our county if a dispensary were to open. Chief Martin expressed his concern regarding the potential impacts of the dispensary being on the border of his city, and District Attorney Dow illuminated the significant prosecutorial challenges his department would face should this move forward.”


Your words. They essentially say nothing. No details, no facts, no analogies, no reasoning, no logic, no common sense, no numbers, just people with vested interests advising against a dispensary concluding it’s “too dangerous”. How? How is it too dangerous? The only assertion mentioned is the one about it being too far out so there wouldn’t be resources to police it? So how far out is it? And wasn’t it the government that demanded it be far away from the city? How can the govt. have it both ways? What’s the danger, the cash? How many people are in danger, the two store employees? How’s it any more dangerous than a bank? Why can’t an armored car pick up regularly? Why can’t the business have a security guard? Why can’t the govt. demand cameras and security measures like a buzz in door? What options were considered short of outright denial of the business? In your initial piece and your responses, why didn’t you discuss those options and tell us why they were inadequate? Could it be because you can’t?


News flash for you. Pot is already here— to stay. And it’s here illegally in 10 fold the numbers that it’s here legally because of asinine catch 22 decisions like this. And it’s you and people like you who are responsible for keeping the illegal pot 10 times the business size of the legal pot. The decision to deny this business will undoubtedly cause more crime then allowing the business (and maybe even a murder or two). Did you ever think of that?


So, if you are really interested in arguing your position, address people’s comments with reasoning, logic, common sense and analogy rather than just calling people immature and pointing to politicians as either conservatives or not.


0

Dan: Jan Marx, John Ashbaugh and Carolyn (sp?) Christianson did vote on this matter in a conservative manner, absolutely no doubt. I’m sure that their fears were stoked by SLO PD concerns about public safety, and I have no doubt that our ever-incompetent city attorney weighed in some bad advice, as usual. Having a dispensary in the city of San Luis would be a lot different than having one on the outskirts of rural Nipomo, and by your trying to bring up the comparison shows that I must have hit a nerve.


If your agreeing with the conservative majority of the Board isn’t a broadcast (code-speak) to the conservative voters of SLO County, what was your point in even penning this opinion piece?


It seems that most conservative politicians who denounce MM, their real problems isn’t with the medical aspects of cannabis, it is the cannabis itself, period. It is safer than alcohol, there are very few documented cases of someone getting stoned then going into a rage and attacking people; the same cannot be said for alcohol.


Get over it, cannabis is going to be legal here in California, just like in Colorado, Washington and Oregon (and soon Canada and possibly Mexico). By legalizing it, we can take the knees out from under the drug cartels, curtail our out-of-control law enforcement’s legal theft of asset forfeiture, and many many people will give this amazing natural substance a try for their medical ailments.


0

Bob…..I get it that you want to put me in a box and label me but it will not work on this issue or any other. Many have tried and failed. My record is one of diversity that supports decisions considered progressive, conservative, libertarian, etc. The reason is because I take a pragmatic, independent approach to my decision making without bias or an idealogical predisposition. Like others, you can keep trying to label me but you will not have success.


You even acknowledge that “having a dispensary in SLO would be a lot different than having one on the outskirts of rural Nipomo”. How so IF there aren’t any significant public safety concerns with a dispensary? The reason I “peened” this piece is to give the community my opinion on what I believe is a safety issue with the proposed location and expose the difference between my opponent and myself on this issue. That’s it…..no bias against marijuana as you presume in your response.. You might even be surprised with my personal view on marijuana, however it’s irrelevant in this forum.


I’m not your typical public servant as you should know by now having followed my service on council. The nerve you and others touch is not one of ego or personal bias, rather one that drives my desire to serve the public in most responsible way……that’s it!


0

“…. I get it that you want to put me an a box and label me …”


Dan, there is a saying about “if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck”. You have tried, as an elected official, to be “different” than your fellow council members, most of whom are labeled (incorrectly, IMO) as “liberals” and I do see where you have tried to not be a staunch conservative, but to appear to be more pragmatic and reasoning. Your business background, your family money, and now this issue which you feel a burning need to differentiate yourself from the current BOS member all point to a conservative mindset. That in itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but your viewpoint on MM and especially this dispensary is just simply wrong, period. I know you are not some anti-Adam Hill, but the more you try to show your street cred as a conservative, the more conservative you will have to become to stay within that definition.


You say you don’t want to be “put in a box and labeled”, but you penned this piece as a way of differentiating yourself from your opponent- this was the wrong issue to do so, simply because you are not showing anyone anything any different than Compton, Arnold or Mecham.


As a landlord, as a former business owner, where is your support for someone trying to make a go in the business world? Shouldn’t the “free market” decide if the applicant had a good business model and either grow or fail with the whims of the buying public?


San Luis deserves better then what Supervisor Hill has been providing, but I’m not sure that you are the person to bring that to the position.


0

Thanks Bob for the respectful dialogue……..your points are duly noted. Lots of time between now and June 7th to shed light on each candidate. The electorate will have many opportunities to educate themselves during the process. I for one look forward to it.


0

you got it wrong Dan. Antiquated victorian thinking with wrote responses is almost done….


0

Headline to this story should have been, #SLO_Sheriff Does Not have the Courage to Serve and Protect Medical Marijuana Patients


0

I really like and appreciate you, Dan, so it is with the utmost respect that I disagree. It IS all about the pot. If it were just about response times none of the other businesses in that location would be there. Most of the wine tasting event centers wouldn’t exist. Every city in our county, including yours, wouldn’t have outlawed dispensaries.


I have no personal preference about allowing or disallowing dispensaries. What bothers me is when government says something is allowed, takes an applicant’s money then decides to disallow. I don’t care if it is a pot shop or a daycare. It’s the principle of making a mockery of their own code. At least the cities have been honest with the citizens by stating upfront that weed dealers need not apply. The county should be equally honest.


0

Mike…..thanks for your response. I’m sure you know the City of SLO ( arguably the most progressive city in the county) does NOT allow brick and mortar dispensaries by default. Nothing in our zoning codes allows for that use so therefore we reject them. At any time the majority of council members (all supporters of Adam Hill) can change that but choose not to because of the issues I point out regarding public safety. They’ve made it very clear they don’t want that land use in our community.


I absolutely agree the county should be honest like the cities and remove this allowed use if they’re going to continue to deny. It’s disingenuous and should be dealt with before the next application.


0

Thanks, Dan. I don’t believe that these businesses create any more potential for crime than any other business with a lot of money (i.e. banks) but if that were true it seems cities where they’d be more easily policed would be a more logical placement than out in the boondocks.


Though we disagree on this issue I do commend you for stating your view forthrightly. That doesn’t happen often enough among the political class.


0

So the Sheriff just announced that law enforcement cannot protect the people and businesses of Nipomo. If I were a criminal I know where I’d be committing my crimes.


0

If this dope is so important to some of you people why don’t you petition the the powers that be to have this stuff put into pill form and sell it through Thrifty and Rite Aid,oh and lets try to have legitimate doctors forms too.


0

Ummm…I was about to talk to Myself… wouldn’t get it anyway.


0

Try it,

I don’t see why this stink weed has to be sold by crooks, why can’t it be sold in a drug store as any other drug,end of problem.


0

If your morals are so important you have to force them onto everybody else why don’t you just pop some of your pharmaceutical crap and be done with yourself like the other 100k people a year who die from pills. Marijuana is safer than Alcohol, Marijuana is safer than Pharmaceuticals and yes Marijuana is even Safer than Government.


0

Government ruins lives, not marijuana.


0

One big problem with medical marijuana is the inherent danger in smoking ANYTHING (yes, smoking weed can lead to lung cancer) and the resultant image problem. The smell is also hideous.


I think if THC was manufactured and sold in pill form by pharmacists, there would be considerably less opposition.


0

the Reagan administration paid Fred Hutchinson researchers about 22 million dollars trying to link marijuana with cancer, resulting in a bunch of really stoned rabbits and no cancer, as a matter of fact cannabis seems to be a prophylactic for lung cancer.


0

http://www.safeaccessnow.org/cannabis_safety


0

Malarkey. Your comments do nothing but reinforce the image of a “ignorant/lying pothead”:


http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/marijuana-and-lung-health.html


You can’t suck the smoke from something burning into your lungs on a regular basis without incurring an increased probability of developing cancer.


0

As slowerfaster says, this is all scare tactics. The funny thing is, you people don’t even understand what you should be scared of. What you’ve done is opted to continue to have 30+ mobile dispensaries pretty much having their way in SLO county. Do you think these mobile dispensaries and their employees went through the same vetting process that the store-front dispensary did? These mobile dispensaries are carrying the “evil weed” along with a bunch of cash driving through your neighborhoods on a daily basis! Boo! Wouldn’t you rather have a store in a set location? Wouldn’t that be easier to keep tabs on? If regulation and control is something that makes you sleep better at night, then you all missed your chance by not allowing a store-front dispensary.


0

REEFER MADNESS!


0
1 2 3