Will Sacramento Discriminate Against Those In Need? – An Analysis of the Recent Medicinal Cannabis Ordinance

Written by: B. MacKenzie

Note from Author: -- After seeing the incomplete and biased coverage of this important board meeting by certain newspapers, Heather and I decided to submit op-eds about this proposed ordinance going on here in our hometown. This is mine, and Heather wrote several which will be posted here as well. Please contact us if you're interested in helping us with the Task Force, writing for the blog, or if you have a topic you'd like us to write about. -- Thanks & Peace, B. MacKenzie

The Sacramento Board of Supervisors has recently decided to postpone voting on the emergency ordinance for limits on medical cannabis. The “Interim Urgency Ordinance Of The Sacramento County Zoning Code Relating To The Cultivation And Dispensing Of Medical Marijuana” would outlaw the sale of edibles, delivery services, outdoor growing, place strict limits on indoor growing, and close the majority of existing dispensaries. But these restrictions will not help restrict access of cannabis to only the sick and dying; but instead hit them hardest, and will not benefit anyone – patient or non-patient. This problem is so complex; it can be hard for someone without insight into the medicinal cannabis community to see how many negative effects this would have on patients Proposition 215 intended to help the most.

This latest proposal highlights the schism that exists between the Sacramento government and the medicinal cannabis community. Many of the proposed limits have been arbitrarily constructed by people without any knowledge of the health science, agriculture, or business of the cannabis world.So little consideration has been put into this ordinance, it’s startling. Limiting indoor-growing operations to houses with more than one room used to grow, for example, excludes patients whose living arrangements do not afford them more than one room – like patients renting rooms, or in studio apartments. Another example is the ban on selling edibles. Edibles are an efficient and discreet way for patients to medicate. Patients with lung conditions or living arrangements that prohibit smoking will be negatively affected if this passes. This effectively denies access of medicine to patients who need to ingest instead of smoking it, who are also unable to do the physical labor of cooking, and/or do not have a caretaker to do it for them.Also, if patients buy cannabis to create their edibles, they will spend more money than if they bought edibles pre-made.

This denying access to the differently-abled is discrimination known as ableism (defined by the OED as: “prejudice against or disregard of the needs of disabled people”). The ban on delivery services also denies cannabis to those with mobility issues or no transportation – especially if the dispensaries in the county are cut, since the nearest will likely be farther away. This ordinance, therefore, is not only ablest, but classist. It would keep cheap, effective medicine from lower-income patients - who less likely have transportation. In addition, the ban on outdoor growing would keep lower-income patients from growing cannabis, since outdoor growing is the cheapest way to obtain cannabis. Indoor-grow setups are prohibitively expensive; sometimes costing thousands for few plants. Since people in poverty are statistically more likely to have serious health issues, any restriction on access to cheap medication is inherently classist.

The public typically sees these patients as replicas of ‘Cheech and Chong’, or otherwise as hardcore criminals or gangsters. This is far from the reality of someone using cannabis for health issues. A cursory glance at MediCann’s ‘Typical Stoner’ campaign shows patients utilizing cannabis from all walks of life, who contribute to society. Marijuana’s reputation as a “dangerous narcotic” taints the treatment of medicinal cannabis, while continued raids and restrictions on legal operations send mixed signals to a public that is unsure about the safety and legality of cannabis.For Sacramento to say that it takes medicinal cannabis seriously, it needs to treat cannabis like any other medicine. The misconception that patients using cannabis are nothing but drug addicts is not worthy justification for differential treatment of medicinal cannabis dispensaries from other pharmacies. No one but a medical doctor has the right to say who is a “real” medicinal cannabis patient, and who isn’t. To blindly qualify some patients as worthy of cannabis and others unworthy is prejudice based on biases against cannabis users, and has no place in medical debate.Cannabis users are not less worthy of medicine than those that use other pharmaceutical medications. These patients have legitimate needs - and California voted for access to cannabis for sick citizens. We cannot let this ordinance pass if we want the sick and poor to continue to have access to this medication. If restrictions to medicinal cannabis benefiting the community, as well as the patients, are to be made, there absolutely must be open communication between patients, scientists, health professionals, and government officials. Without that, the message being sent is that medicinal cannabis is considered a joke, or that the sick and poor deserve to be considered criminals.