For a complete list of articles related to medical marijuana regulation, visit the IB Patch Prop S Topic page.
Since the start of the year, the Yes on S Committee has raised near $80,000 in total contributions to persuade voters to approve the Safe Access Ordinance of Imperial Beach and allow medical marijuana dispensaries in IB.
That's more than the amount of money raised by all Imperial Beach City Council candidates combined.
In contrast, Citizens Against Prop S has only raised $3,600 in total contributions, according to financial disclosure documents.
The top donor to Citizens Against Prop is Mayor Jim Janney, who loaned the campaign $700.
Janney said he still believes in ordinances the city passed last year that allow collectives of three people or fewe but prohibits dispensaries, and that Prop S goes far beyond the needs of sick patients.
"They're [Citizens Against Prop S] not paying for hired consultants. They're not paying for people to knock on doors," Janney said when asked why the fundraising gap is so wide. "The candidates who are running for office aren't even spending that much money."
In IB, he said, "you shouldn't have to spend that much money to get elected or put a reasonable proposition out."
Meanwhile, as of Oct. 20, Proposition Y, a South Bay Union School District bond measure to invest in infrastructure improvements, has raised near $14,000.
Imperial Beach City Council candidate Bobby Patton has raised near $6,000, more money than any other candidate in the race, but 13 times less than the Prop S campaign, campaign finance documents.
Among eight people who gave the No on S campaign more than $100, six live in Imperial Beach, including Port Commissioner Dan Malcolm, Councilman Ed Spriggs, and Pacifica SD Management, a subsidiary of Pacifica Companies, owner of the new Pier South hotel.
In an argument in the ballot pamphlet against Prop S signed by Mayor Jim Janney, opponents labeled the campaign's funders as "out of town, special interest, profiteers," and in fact the majority of Yes on S campaign funders come from outside IB.
Among 55 donors who gave more than $100, more than 90 percent live outside Imperial Beach.
Individuals from 15 different cities across San Diego County gave money to the Yes on S campaign.
Among top places of residence for donors, 22 live in San Diego, five are from IB, four from Chula Vista and three from La Jolla and Florida.
As the committee's formal name states, the Yes on S is sponsored by Canvass for a Cause and Americans for Safe Access.
Canvass for a Cause supports issues like gay marriage, Occupy San Diego and anti-bullying campaigns. Americans for Safe Access strives to increase access to marijuana dispensaries.
The top donor, Amy McQuillin of Ramona, CA, gave $20,300 to the Yes on S campaign. McQuillin is a member of Americans for Safe Access and supports Occupy San Diego and Americans for a Department of Peace.
Yes on S has been able to raise money from across San Diego, said Eugene Davidovich, head of ASA and the Yes on S campaign manager, in part because dispensaries across the county and state have been shut down.
The Yes on S campaign started in April to gather signatures to get the proposition on the ballot, while Citizens Against Prop S didn't get started until September.
"They haven't spent nearly as much time working on this issue or studying this," he said.
The Yes on S campaign currently has had a total of 50 paid and unpaid people go door-to-door, Davidovich said.
Davidovich said Canvass for a Cause and Americans for Safe Access have not supported a medical marijuana ballot initiative this way before, and the current and former mayors and council members taking part in the no campaign should have the advantage.
"If anything, their infrastructure has existed for many more years, even longer than Canvass for a Cause has existed," he said. "The only people that gave them money are the entrenched politicians and prohibitionists who have been against this issue for whatever reasons that they have."
$60,000 in monetary contributions given to the Yes on S campaign went to pay for, among other things, a billboard on Palm Avenue, online advertising, yard signs, Canvass for a Cause support and near $16,000 in consultant fees.
Sam Spear, Heidi Whitman and Davidovich, who were paid consultant fees, are leaders at Canvass for a Cause or Americans for Safe Access.
In nonmonetary contributions, the campaign received tattoo and drag dinner show gift certificates, free pizza, gift baskets, bongs and pipes, rolling papers and much more.
Opponents have also called funders of the Yes on S campaign marijuana industry special interests.
Analysis of occupations listed by donors who gave more than $100 found six people directly connected to the medical marijuana industry.
Five owned or operated a medical marijuana dispensary, among them Robert Reidell. In September, his Mother Earth Co-Op was the final dispensary to close in San Diego.
There were also academic medical journal editors, retired veterans, a lawyer, a spa owner, a bodybuilder, an organic farmer, a U-T San Diego employee (graphic artist Shaffer Grubb), the owner of a parenting advice and family planning company and unemployed and retired individuals.
Homemaker Patsy Brown of Imperial Beach gave $200 to Citizens Against Prop S and $215 to Yes on S. Patch sought comment from Brown but she has not yet responded.
First, the guidelines say collectives are “…democratically controlled and are not organized to make a profit for themselves,” but dispensary customers who walk in do not have a say on how the dispensary is operated and the selling of marijuana in a commercial retail settings financially benefit the owners/operators of the dispensary. Second, the guidelines say “The earnings and savings of the business must be used for the general welfare of its members for equal distribution to members in the form of cash, property, credits for services.”, but dispensaries do not distribute cash to the members/customers who are not employees/owners. Third, the guidelines say, “…should be a closed-network of marijuana cultivation and consumption with no purchase or sales to or from non-members.”, although anyone can walk into a dispensary, become a member by filing out forms and buy marijuana.
Fourth, the guidelines say “Collectives Should Acquire, Possess, and Distribute Only Lawfully Cultivated Marijuana.”, but dispensaries don’t supply authorities with information on where or how the marijuana is grown. Fifth, the guidelines say primary caregiver must have “…assumed responsibility for the housing, health and safety of the patient.”, but dispensary operators/owners serving as the ‘primary caregivers’ obviously aren’t also responsible for the housing, health, and safety of all their customers. In addition it’s quite telling to hear from Reverend Scott T. Imler, co-author of Proposition 215, who has expressed his concerns with the runway abuse occurring with dispensaries. He said, “We created Prop. 215 so patients would not have to deal with the black market profiteers. But today it is all about the money. Most of the dispensaries operating in California are a little more than dope dealers with store fronts.” - Alternatives Magazine, Fall 2006, issue 39. Reverend Scott T. Imler also said, “When we wrote Proposition 215, we were selling it to the public as something for seriously ill people... It’s turned into a joke. I think a lot of people have medicalized their recreational use.”- San Gabriel Valley Tribune, February 15, 2007.
Reminds me of a old saying: "If you can't dazzle them with Brilliance Baffle them with Bullshit ..."
VIDEO: http://imperialbeach.patch.com/blog_posts/video-prop-s-town-hall-meeting#youtube_video-12007401
No matter what spin, and how much out of town money is spent, it is BAD for IMPERIAL BEACH.
im sure John Galt and the rest of the reefer madness crew knew all of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy66MUZP538
Freedom of the individual. “…over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”.” — from the essay On Liberty by John Stuart Mill What happened to, "This is a FREE country"? That is what we have been telling the rest of the world for decades. Please, let us live up to it. Lead by example. After spending 5 years in Federal Prison for a marijuana offense, I wrote: Shoulda Robbed a Bank No, it is not a treatise on disproportionate sentences. It is about the escapades that led to my incarceration. I admit, I had a great time. No one was injured, no one was killed, firearms were not involved...there were no victims. We were Americans pursuing happiness in our own way. Harming no one...nor their property. That’s my contribution to helping point out just how ludicrous our pot laws truly are.
It is interesting to me that all the YES people make all kinds of arguments on why voters should approve this, but none of them address the issue of the all important need to change federal law first. Why aren't they using their money and time to support change to federal law? Are their brains so fogged they can't understand that? Stupid!
NO on POOP S is about STOPPING SLEEZY, CRIME RIDDEN, LOWLIFE CULTURE that POOP S will bring. It is that simple. The agrument is not about medical, it is about the medod of selling. IF IT FOR MEDICAL - GO TO CVS and get it, Not some sleezy, unsafe place. Brash - DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Likely not because you have burned what few brains out with drugs. BRING A SAFE METHOD OF SALE to the public and nobody will agrue. POOP S IS UNSAFE. Thank you
NO on POOP S is TO STOP SLEEZY CRIME in Imperial Beach.
Supreme Court Holds Medical Marijuana Illegal http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/supreme-court-holds-medical-marijuana-illegal/ Author: Justene Adamec — Published: Jun 06, 2005 at 10:58 am By initiative, California voters legalized the use of marijuana under a doctor's supervision. California voters cannot change federal law and today, the US Supreme Court held that federal law preempts state law and users of medical marijuana can still be prosecuted under federal statutes. The majority opinion was written by John Paul Stevens followed well-established law on the preemption clause. The federal law preempts state law where the federal government has shown an intent to occupy that area of law. The federal drug laws do that and Stevens held that the proper remedy is for Congress to change the law, not to favor state laws in a preempted area.
Vote NO on Prop S How easy is it to get a Medical Marijuana card for people as young at 18? Pretty easy according to NBC news 7: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/health/How_Easy_Is_It_To_Get_A_Medical_Marijuana_Card__San_Diego.html HIPAA Privacy Rules prevent the disclosure of medical conditions so the Medical Marijuana applications do not even list the reason. I’m NO on prop S because it is a poorly written policy that allows for massive abuse = Pot Shop PROFIT- $$$ - at the expense of our community. Dispense medicine at the Pharmacy to the sick and terminally ill that need it. VOTE NO on Prop S - SUPPORT the dispensary laws already on the books in IB.
Those people who don't want prop s to pass must be in with the drug cartels? We want and will get safe access. Would it be ok to take the federal building and give back America what was stolen, freedom and the right to not be oppressed? take back America fight for freedom and liberty.... freedom fighters unite!!! Its the American way..read the constitutio ..wake up
we call them 'adults' because we march them off to war and justify it by saying their 'old enough'.... if they are old enough to die for someone else's mistakes they are entitled to live their lives as they choose...
Instead of “the sides” fighting each other why not work to make our local government function better if the laws on the books are not being followed. Large dispensaries will bring many troubles upon our small community including legal troubles $$$$$. I recall you mentioning this part of the budget is deep in the RED. Why add to it the problem? The current city law that allows collectives of three or fewer people to grow and consume Medical marijuana makes sense. As far as your comment regarding 18 year olds… we call them 'adults' because we march them off to war and justify it by saying their 'old enough'.... I highly respect our service women and men, “Thank You for Serving OUR Country”. Anyone in a critical condition should not be sent off to fight a war. PREVENT Shaky Access Vote NO on Prop S