Imperial Beach Voters Reject Prop. S

Despite the backing of a well-funded campaign with a large volunteer force, a majority of Imperial Beachians voted "no" on Prop S, a measure that would have allowed medical marijuana dispensaries in IB.

Updated 1:25 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Nov. 7

Imperial Beach voters have turned down Proposition S, rejecting the measure after signatures were gathered to place it in on the ballot earleir this year. 

With all 12 local precincts reporting, 59.76 percent of Imperial Beachians voted "no", and 40.24 percent voted "yes."

Elsewhere in San Diego, dispensary ballot measures in Lemon Grove, Del Mar and Solana Beach were also rejected.

If Prop. S had received a majority of "yes" votes, the Safe Access Ordinance of Imperial Beach would have allowed medical marijuana dispensaries in IB and banished restrictive laws passed by City Council last year.

Assistant City Manager Greg Wade estimated that 20 or more dispensaries could be opened in commercial areas across Imperial Beach, while the Yes on S campaign manager Eugene Davidovich said only one or two dispensaries would open.

The Yes on S campaign, headed by members of Americans for Safe Access and Canvass for a Cause, was better funded than the entire Imperial Beach City Council race, and had more than 20 times the amount of money raised by Citizens Against Prop S.

Citizens Against Prop. S was established Sept. 18 by former mayor Diane Rose and former school board member Dee McLean. The no campaign received financial support primarily from former or current elected representatives, including Port Commission Dan Malcolm, Mayor Jim Janney and Councilman Ed Spriggs.

A subsidiary of Pacifica Companies, owner of the new hotel Pier South, also supported Citizens Against Prop. S.

John Galt November 08, 2012 at 05:19 AM
Alex - focus on the rules to get one. Don't worry about tax revenue. Screws up your message.
Bong Sativa November 08, 2012 at 06:30 AM
There are two Obamas ! There is the one you describe that FOX News & Rush Limbaugh talk about & then there's the real President Obama who was re-elected ! No one would vote for the first Obama,but obviously the majority of American voters know the real Obama & dismiss the right-wing propaganda of the conservative right ! You know what they say - you can fool some of the people some of the time (we call them Republicans) & you can fool some people all of the time (also Republicans) !!!
Ron November 08, 2012 at 06:40 AM
I believe the court of common knowledge would find otherwise, Ms Uremovic. You rejected outright every "common sense", civil argument the opponents of S put forward. You had every opportunity to present yourself as one who embraces common sense and a reasoned response. You went out of your way, as did those other rabidly pro S supporters to be contentious, mean spirited, and vulgar in your posts. These quotes are from your Nov 2 posts on the Patch. "i put up a very large 20' banner on palm avenue" "one was 20' lowery and the other 2 were 3'x5' yes on s signs...all hand painted on cloth..." This last one is the coup de gras: "...tearing down signs & trying to slander me on the net is the best they can do" You slander yourself, mam. Your actions convict you of what your tongue denies. The depth of bitterness towards society that comes through your posts warrants sympathy and a hope you one day will seek out counseling for your anger. I know, you'll hate me for saying that, but contrary to what you may believe, not everyone has it out for you,, but then neither are you making much effort to gain consideration. Lashing out at others as if they are nothing more than targets for your misguided enmity and hate is inexcusable. You should be ashamed. It's no wonder you choose to live "outside". Best to you.
Ron November 08, 2012 at 06:53 AM
Bitter to the end, eh, Ms Uremovic? Unable to even recognize such a heartfelt gesture of goodwill offered towards one's community. You choose to be a lightening rod for controversy and contention. Heal thyself, then you'll be in a position to judge the motives and actions of others. John is spot on. This world does not move forward because of the the complainers and critics, but IN SPITE of them. IB can now move past the ill-conceived, nefariously constructed Prop S, campaign. Ever tried surrender?
IBRalph November 08, 2012 at 08:28 AM
Summer, you seem to buy into state law preempting municipal law (and wo be the poor city of IB for not honoring that), but don't exactly dismiss federal law preempting state law, just don't think the feds will enforce that preemption. However, you think the U.S. Supreme Court might have to step in and force cities to honor the preemption of the state. Duh......you might want to re-read their 2005 holding. They specifically stepped in and said states cannot preempt feds. The U.S. Congress has to change the law. Short, specific and really easy language to understand. But hey, who's the U.S. Supreme Court. You'll just laugh them off and have the state go after the city of IB for preempting state law. This is your mind on pot. So let's check the Prop S vote results again. Yeah, that's right, you didn't fool the voters in IB. Spent all that money and didn't get a lot of bang for your buck. Hmmmm......
Michael November 08, 2012 at 04:07 PM
.....kind of a moot point.....Washington and Colorado have legalization........California won't be too far behind.......
Michael November 08, 2012 at 04:14 PM
........record numbers of unemployed ? Not even close. Largest tax hike in history? When did that happen ? Credit downgrades you're blaming him for ? Least transparent ? Did you make that up ? Where are your facts on that claim ? Turn off FoxNews and you might actually be able to carry on an intelligent conversation !
John Galt November 08, 2012 at 04:29 PM
Alex - again focus on the one iitem. Don't make it tax revenue, that is a losing proposition. Nobody belives the millions of revenue. Smoke and mirrors. Also the Fed's already came out and said they will stop the pot laws in Washington and Colorado.
Jack Fisher November 08, 2012 at 04:36 PM
I am glad that S did not pass. With millions in tax revenue to be had, which means millions of dollars in sales as well, the Yes on S people should have focused on the tax revenue instead of trying to convince us that they were only trying to help the sick. I believe that having safe and easy access to medicine for all is important, especially in Vey's and others like him situations. With millions of dollars in sales to be had, how can the Yes group say that there would only be one or two shops in IB? Not having S pass will not keep the Cartels in business or increase their role in the drug market. If CA ever legalizes pot, do you really think that the cartels and other drug lords will just move on? No!, they will fight and they will kill to get their business back. I urge the Yes group and the City Council, not the City Manager or City Attorney, to work TOGETHER to come up with a resonable solution. I agree that there is need to provide goods and services to IB residents, but the transparency of the true goal needs to be seen.
Libi Uremovic November 08, 2012 at 05:05 PM
vey, the problem is that government officials & agencies have no motivation to do the right thing for the people... you have to instill that motivation in them.... look at the ib audit: libionline.net every penny of tax payer money is a matter of public record.... request records of every bank account for the last 2 years.... you will find enough evidence to have 98% of your problem thrown in prison... if the local atf has nothing better to do than to harass a shopkeeper they are way over budget.... we need to audit their books... your organization needs to spend the next year auditing every city and local, state, or federal agency that has nothing better to do with tax payer dollars than to suppress the rights of the individual and small business... i can show anyone how to audit the books....it's very simple to follow the money....the state controller's office is sending in auditing teams ...the state understands the problem and will back you up...
John Galt November 08, 2012 at 05:37 PM
Alex - are you on your tour, focus back to the discussion on what it takes to have only one pot store as eariler discussed.
Libi Uremovic November 08, 2012 at 06:22 PM
i wrote an article trying to explain it from a business perspective :http://imperialbeach.patch.com/blog_posts/yes-on-s-vote-for-the-rights-of-individuals-small-business-to-prosper you ignored the business perspective .... if i remember correctly your reasoning was: 'i'm religious, so i ignore god and man and only follow my religion'... people like vey focus on the medical aspect because that's what is important to them...and if i remember correctly: 'marcus will make money' was one of the evils that was warned about.... so no, you don't get to go back now and say you wanted a 'honest discussion' the yes group has been trying to work with the city for years....two of our councilmen tried to write up a better agreement, but the city manager and attorney perverted it make it unusable... the reason it went to the vote is because all other avenues had been exhausted.... stop making excuses ....you drew your conclusion - then you manipulated every piece of data to fit your conclusion.... let the city close down the farmers market....and if the people that were making money and the consumers want it bad enough they can put it on the ballot ....but they will be labeled carpet baggers and druggies by their neighbors and 'friends'... good luck to them...
Jack Fisher November 08, 2012 at 07:11 PM
Libi, I understand your side, yet you were the one saying that you weree not a part of the Yes on S official campaign. Maybe you should have joined forces with them and they could have included your ideas in their efforts. I have always been an advocate for transparency, much like yourself. I just wanted the other side to come clean and awswer my questions, and they did. I have zero problem understanding the business stand point of what Yes on S could have meant to the City but the official stance was that it is about helping provide safe access for the sick. They stayed focused on that and Prop S did not pass. There are two years until the next election\vote and with Coucilman Bilbray being re-elected you have you guy to spearhead the movement toward working together. A majority of Imperial Beach voters voted against Prop S, some of these same voters voted for Bilbray. Some that voted for Prop S did not vote for the only candidate who was Yes on S from the beginning, go figure? This a sign that voters truely did not like Prop S as written or do not want pot shops in IB.
Chico&The Man November 08, 2012 at 07:35 PM
John Always Going Further One dispensary is what would be ideal Did i draft the Ordiance No Did IB loose Millions YES IB 's Path had been the opposite of Further since 1887
John Galt November 08, 2012 at 07:45 PM
Alex - your rambling now. Let me know when you are ready to focus on the discussion above. Thanks
Libi Uremovic November 08, 2012 at 08:04 PM
yea jack, maybe i should have joined forces with them...maybe i should have worked harder ....maybe it's my fault... ..but i'm auditing the city books, remember jack? i can't do it all jack... i can't fight corruption and teach you how to think for yourself...you're going to have to hold yourself up jack....i can't carry you any more... the election is over jack... it's very easy to blame the other side, but it's a cop-out you and dante and write-in ron and imaginary character and tall guy that showed up at the meeting get together and get some dispensaries in the city for these people... ...and for the dozens of other businesses that have been run out of town in the last few years..... it's time to walk the walk and stop making excuses....
Jack Fisher November 08, 2012 at 08:27 PM
Libi, I walk the walk that I talk. You have no need to carry me but if I can help you with finding fraud with the City's financial records I will. No fault is trying to be placed, the voters spoke with their voices. You need to accept that and move on with your cause, as it is one that I feel needs to addressed more that what businesses are allowed in IB. Alex, "IB 's Path had been the opposite of Further since 1887" <that was funny
Chico&The Man November 08, 2012 at 09:00 PM
When you set up the Dispensary John ill come by and we can discuss whatever you want unless you have experience in the field of medical M/collectives its pointless.. to discuss some thing you know Nothing about
John Galt November 08, 2012 at 09:04 PM
Unless you have a business background, discussing anything with you is pointless. Alex - you lost it.
Chico&The Man November 08, 2012 at 10:07 PM
I Do i founded the first collective in the south bay and a CO. in IB that is verry succecessful and just finished a Resort project in Panama The Point is IB lost Millions Unless you have Dispensary Business Experience Its all Pointless, There are courses that teach the marijuana business Personally have No interest in setting up a collective in Southbay/Imperial beach been there done that... http://youtu.be/CzCaDq7leRI
ILuvIB November 08, 2012 at 11:47 PM
Thank you IB for defeating pot shops – Prop S. Our city will be a healthier and safer place. The following Op-Ed in today’s New York Times highlights the fraud occurring with pot shops and medi-pot: By ED GOGEK, OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR The New York Times, page A23 November 8, 2012 TUESDAY’S election was a victory for the marijuana lobby: Colorado and Washington State voted to legalize recreational use, while Massachusetts will now allow doctors to recommend it as medicine. It’s a movement around which many Democrats have coalesced. In Colorado, legalization was part of the state party’s platform. And last year, in Montana, Republicans voted to overturn the state’s medical marijuana law, but the Democratic governor saved it with a veto. But Democrats should think twice about becoming the party of pot. I’m a lifelong partisan Democrat, but I’ve also spent 25 years as a doctor treating drug abusers, and I know their games. They’re excellent con artists. Take, for example, medical marijuana laws. They were sold to more than a dozen states with promises that they’re only for serious illnesses like cancer. But that’s not how they work in practice. Almost all marijuana cardholders claim they need it for various kinds of pain, but pain is easy to fake and almost impossible to disprove. In Oregon and Colorado, 94 percent of cardholders get their pot for pain. In Arizona, it’s 90 percent. Serious illnesses barely register.
ILuvIB November 08, 2012 at 11:48 PM
Page 2 It’s possible that they all really do need pot to help them. But consider this: pain patients are mostly female, whereas a recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that adult cannabis abusers were 74 percent male. So which one do marijuana patients resemble? Though only two states release data on gender, a vast majority of medical-marijuana cardholders are male. In Arizona, it’s 73 percent, and in Colorado, it’s 68 percent. The best explanation for such skewed numbers is that most medical marijuana recipients are drug abusers who are either faking or exaggerating their problems. No one should support this subterfuge, but especially not Democrats. It turns us into hypocrites. We fumed when President George W. Bush proposed gutting the Clean Air Act and called it the Clear Skies Initiative. That’s no more dishonest than calling pot “medical” when it almost all goes to recreational use. Indeed, marijuana activists use phony science, just as global warming deniers do. For years they claimed pot was good for glaucoma and never apologized when research found it could actually make glaucoma worse. They still insist weed isn’t addictive, despite every addiction medicine society saying it is.
ILuvIB November 08, 2012 at 11:48 PM
Page 3 They’ve even produced their own flawed scientific studies supposedly proving that medical marijuana laws don’t increase use among teenagers, when almost all the evidence says just the opposite. How can Democrats criticize Republicans for disregarding science and making up facts when people on our side do the same? Democrats know we need government regulation to protect the public from unhealthy products. But the marijuana lobby wants us to distrust two centerpieces of the regulatory state, the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The whole purpose of medical marijuana laws is to evade the regulatory power of these agencies. We’re the political party that got the F.D.A. to regulate tobacco. How can we now say it shouldn’t regulate pot? Legalization also runs counter to the Democrats’ commitment to education. States with medical marijuana laws have always had much higher rates of teenage marijuana use, but now the effect is nationwide. Since 2008, teenage use has increased 40 percent, and heavy use (at least 20 times a month) is up 80 percent. Blame the drive to legalize pot. It sends the message that weed is harmless, even though research shows that teenagers who use it regularly do worse in school, are twice as likely to drop out and earn less as adults. Teenage use has been shown to permanently lower I.Q.
ILuvIB November 08, 2012 at 11:49 PM
Page 4 No other drug, not even alcohol, affects academic performance like marijuana. How can we make education a focus, and then support laws that will blunt the next generation’s ability to compete? Legalization would also undermine a successful Democratic program: drug courts, which were written into the 1994 crime bill by Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. They use coercion, the threat of jail, to keep addicts in treatment. But the marijuana lobby opposes coercion. That’s not surprising. Drug users just want to be left alone to get high. If we side with them, we’re undercutting the Democratic answer to substance abuse. In effect, America now has two tea parties: on the left they smoke their tea; on the right they throw it in Boston Harbor. Both distrust government, disregard science and make selfish demands that would undermine the public good. But while Republicans have completely caved in to their Tea Party, several Democrats, including the president, are standing up to ours. Ed Gogek is an addiction psychiatrist and board member of Keep AZ Drug Free, which opposes medical marijuana laws. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/opinion/a-bad-trip-for-democrats.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
R.C.Martin November 08, 2012 at 11:53 PM
i have lived in ib my whole life and i can tell you that the city council and mayors have really f*cked this town up, look at all the empty buildings that are empty i remember when there were no empty buildings, now we have 3 recycling places, no sandcastles, if you are a small buisiness you better go to chula vista or somewhere else cause ib doesnt give you the time of day with all their bullshirt codes, yeah they have a great code enforcement guy David Garcia what a peice of crapp.
Summer Hemphill November 09, 2012 at 12:27 AM
Storefront dispensaries are legal in California & neither cities or voters can ban them anymore ! Enjoy your moment of glory,for it will be short lived & costly in more ways than one !
Summer Hemphill November 09, 2012 at 12:37 AM
By the way while you haters were chortling the national Drug Abuse Resistance Education organization (DARE) that purports to teach our children about the dangers of drugs has removed every reference to marijuana from their curriculum ! The haters in IB can't see the forest for the trees,it's a big world out their & it's passing them by !!!
Ibchr November 09, 2012 at 12:49 AM
The recycling places are in San Diego, not IB. David Garcias left the city earlier this summer.
Libi Uremovic November 09, 2012 at 01:20 PM
my 'cause' is to clean up the corruption so that we can lower taxes while providing quality services....and yes, the money is there..... ...but we're going to have to start closing down worthless bureaucracies.... you don't seem to understand that i didn't 'lose anything' ....we as a society lost jack....we continue to waste billions of dollars on bureaucracy while simultaneously loosing millions of dollars in tax revenue for our state....double hit to the tax payer.... if the plant wasn't grown in our state it would be one issue, but legalizing weed in cali would bring in millions of dollars of revenue on a variety of levels from the farmer to the employee in the store... and yes, that's how economies grow....if we keep suppressing small business and growing government and our country will continue to go down hill.... it's a plant that does no harm to self or society, yet we have allowed our government to create a milti-billion dollar industry around stigmatizing this plant if we can't agree to close down this ridiculously wasteful bureaucracy then how will ever clean up any of the bureaucracy ?
Mike G November 10, 2012 at 03:51 AM
@Libi "if weed and gay marriage were legal we'd have no revenue problems in cali". You can't be serious.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something