A note (below) from David Downs, Cannabis Editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, reminds us that Tod Mikuriya, MD, tried in vain after Prop 215 passed in 1996 to get support for an “audit” (Tod’s term) that would have pressured state and county agencies to adjust their policies in accordance with the new law. The victory of Prop 215 had come as a stunning surprise —and a clear rebuke— to California politicos and bureaucrats. They were momentarily back on their heels, and Tod knew how important it was to keep the political momentum. Winning the election —creating a new law by a ballot measure— is one thing; get it implemented is another… The reform honchos Back East claimed credit for our victory but wouldn’t spend a dime on implementation.
The Chronicle virtually ignored the medical marijuana story for more than a decade as it unfolded… And now, all these years later, they’re going to report on the jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction fight for implementation of Prop 64. It’s a good thing, I know —progress— but somebody has to provide the relevant background.
From DD:
On Tuesday July 4, the Chronicle is scheduled to publish in print a review of the Bay Area’s 114 cities and counties’ efforts to implement —or stymie— cannabis legalization initiative Proposition 64.
We’re hoping you can share the story when it comes out in print and on SFChronicle.com, and check out our new lookup tool —which allows citizens to check cannabis laws in their jurisdiction.
Our reporting indicates that of the 114 Bay Area cities and counties:
— just 15 have operating medical cannabis dispensaries
— none have issued licenses for recreational stores in preparation for the Jan. 1, 2018 launch of legal sales
— and 45 cities or counties have banned personal recreational outdoor cultivation
— many more intend to ban outdoor gardens
— public comment is needed to implement Prop 64 locally
