.
Feedback

Medical Marijuana Ballot Measure Headed for Encinitas, 4 Other Cities?

Votes are sought in five cities—including Lemon Grove and La Mesa. Efforts follow San Diego.

Updated at 9:25 p.m. March 30, 2012

Encinitas has no medical marijuana dispensaries, but the city could be a haven for pot shops if a proposed ballot measure is approved, according to a U-T San Diego report. (See attached PDF.)

Measures sought in five cities—including Encinitas, Lemon Grove and La Mesa—take their cue from one planned for the city of San Diego (attached).

Leucadia closed a medical pot clinic about six months ago after complaints, the U-T reported Friday.

“There was a lot of problems with drugs and things like that and the sheriff had been involved,” Planning Director Pat Murphy was quoted as saying.

The U-T reported that all five efforts are being coordinated by Citizens for Patient Rights with help from the trade group Patient Care Association.

“Our organization has wanted to create safe access throughout as much of the county as possible,” James Schmachtenberger, chairman of the PCA, was quoted as saying.

“As we began collecting signatures for the initiative in San Diego, we saw the need of patients in outlying areas and we realized we were just under the deadline for when ballot measures would need to be turned in to qualify for the election in November.”

In November 2011, a La Mesa Patch poll asked: Should marijuana for medical and recreational use be legalized on the federal level?

The result of the unscientific poll was 87 percent yes, 11 percent no.

Spiderwoman April 1, 2012 at 03:42 pm
I know Encinitas is a small town and all, but don't you guys have any lawyers? Any taxes raised on the sales of marijuana would not only make Encinitas a participant in illegal drug trafficking, but any tax revenues raised could be seized by the federal government as the proceeds of illegal drug trafficking. Oh, and mingling those revenues with the general fund would constitute money laundering. Might be a good time for your lawyers to do the higher level thinking instead of listening to pot heads.
Ron Kirkish April 1, 2012 at 07:32 pm
Spiderwoman,
You are right on. But let us not forget that those same city officials in Encinitas are also placing themselves in even greater harms way as US Attorney's across the United States have warned elected officials, their staffs; including the Chief of Police, City Attorney, City Administrators, and Staff, that they can be "Arrested for Aiding and Abetting a Criminal Enterprise" for breaking the statutes definded in the Federal Control Substance Act also called the CSA. Why anyone would consider placing themselves in direct conflict with the laws of the Federal Government just so someone can smoke marijuana to get "High or Stoned" is beyond me...makes absolutely no sense from the aspect of having a permanent criminal record and/or the financial loss that would be encured by the cost of litigation born by that official. Ron Kirkish
Hoe Nalu April 30, 2012 at 03:08 pm
First, Ron, you don't live, pay taxes, volunteer at our schools, or clean our beaches here in Encinitas, do you? Vote in our local elections? You sometimes say you live in Gilroy and you do have an agenda against the democratic process of ballot initiatives, as I found similar speculative comments from you all over the web. Get thyself to Sacramento, please. The legislature is obviously not hearing you. Make sure that your opinion is considered, that ALL opinions are considered. Who knows, maybe there is a legislator who wants to help your cause. In reality, the Dems as a party will protect individual access rights to humane treatment, Republicans will protect state's rights (right???). As long as a product is created/grown in CA and stays in CA, what are the feds whining about? So you're asserting that a bunch of "stoners" are controlling the CA legislature, then. Maybe the feds should be looking at you for violating the Patriot Act, insinuating that the democratic process has been taken over by a small group of "stoners" in the most powerful state in the Union sure does sound subversive, and dangerous to our way of life. Or are you just saying the Feds should be the only arbiter of what's right for all US citizens? You would not have gone through this effort if you didn't think you have better judgement than the actual citizens of Encinitas. I don't agree with you yet, but maybe there's something you haven't written yet that will make sense.
Hoe Nalu April 30, 2012 at 04:46 pm
Ron, you're fighting the wrong fight. You're saying you know something the rest of us don't seem to be able to see, but won't expose "it". You admit alcohol and tobacco are more costly and widespread issues.
Readers, just google his name. Facebook lists him as part of the Stop Marijuana Abuse Coalition (anyone else discussing abuse here? Not me.) http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000818308391 Check out in this Youtube video with Mr. Kirkish speaking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Il9raZACkw Ask your questions, and see what convinces YOU is right.
Summer Hemphill May 1, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Ron Kirkish is a anti-marijuana zealot from Gilroy whose goal is to circumvent the wishes of California voters by denying cannabis patients "safe & legal access" to their medication as guaranteed by state law !! Nobody pays attention to him in Nor Cal & neither should any intelligent people in So Cal !! Over 70% of Californians support medical marijuana & recent polling shows that for the first time legalization is favored by over 50% of Americans !! With state courts about to rule that cities can't ban dispensaries & the Feds approving dispensaries in Washington D.C. Ron is about to become a much bigger loser than he already is !!!
Spiderwoman May 14, 2012 at 02:15 am
Polls are easily manipulated. Voters are not. Voters are wising up to the "medical" marijuana hoax. The voters are rejecting "medical" marijuana all over the country. As far as general legalization, you all weren't even able to gather enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot in California. The tide is turning.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Encinitas Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Dr. Michele Drake June 19, 2013 at 11:50 am
The benefit garage and bake sale is this Saturday, June 22 from 7 a.m. to noon at 1463 Golden SunsetRead More Drive in San Marcos (San Elijo Hills). Here's the link to the event: http://encinitas.patch.com/groups/events/p/drake-center-garage-sale-to-benefit-autism-therapy-dog_3a2145e8
Dr. Michele Drake June 19, 2013 at 11:50 am
All donated items can be dropped off at The Drake Center, located at 195 N. El Camino Real inRead More Encinitas.
Mary E June 19, 2013 at 04:01 pm
do you get a donation receipt for tax purposes?
Vicki Campbell June 17, 2013 at 04:42 pm
Prop A will help residents and stop greedy developers from buying city council. Vote YES
Rick Moore June 18, 2013 at 09:27 am
I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation that folks read the initiative. When you readRead More sections 6 and 9, you will see that Prop A sets a 30-foot or 2-story ceiling across the entire city, overriding lower height limits in many areas. The Downtown Specific Plan limits residences to 22-26 feet, as detailed on the DEMA website, so Prop A would actually allow the building of taller homes. It makes no exemptions or allowances for historic buildings like La Paloma, church towers or other structures over 30 feet high; the only exceptions are medical complexes and public high schools (see clause 6.2). Rebuilding or renovating (more than 50%) would require expensive public votes. Should the SRF be required to pay for an election to rebuild the Lotus Tower? Such contingencies are allowed for in our Historic Overlay Zone, which would clearly be overridden by Prop A. So is the Encinitas Preservation Association's plan to convert one of the boathouses to a museum. Again, Prop A would require an election (see section 4.1, clause e), which the EPA cannot afford. Prop A would thus favor large developers who have the money, time, lawyers and other resources to campaign for their project. How many nonprofits and small businessmen can afford to spend a minimum $30,000 just to get their project on a general election ballot (upwards of $300,000 for a special election like this one)? Yes, folks, please read the initiative, especially Section 9, which lays waste to anything that conflicts with it. That's why this has been dubbed Propzilla. I trust that most Encinitas citizens are smart enough to see that this meausre is deeply flawed, problematic and counter-productive. We can find much better ways to limit growth and preserve community character.
BlueAngel2 June 18, 2013 at 10:20 am
SAVE ENCINITAS FROM RANCID DEVELOPERS. VOTE YES ON PROP A!
BlueAngel2 June 15, 2013 at 09:47 pm
It would NOT surprise me. I thought we dumped Stocks. Why is he still around?
Encinitas YES on A June 16, 2013 at 02:44 pm
My YES on Prop. A sign was stolen yesterday. Other YES on Prop. A signs are disappearing. YetRead More another deceptive and untruthful mailer from the opponents of Prop. A was in my mail box. There's a shrillness and desperation in their opposition. They can't rely on facts and fair play. Polling data not looking good?
BlueAngel2 June 16, 2013 at 03:17 pm
YES ON PROP A will be victorious!
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 11:20 am
It just goes to show if Stocks or any of his puppets are involved, you will not hear the truth aboutRead More this proposition. They continue to confuse the issue. Please do not throw your vote away to ruin our city and enhance the developer's pockets who do not care what they do to our beautiful Encinitas. Vote YES on PROP A!
Status Quo June 19, 2013 at 11:53 am
Looks very much like your Prop A will pass, though 'BA2's tactic seems to be part of the problemRead More also.
TB-ENC June 7, 2013 at 02:01 pm
How is this not a racist group with Hispanics in California at 14 million second behind whites atRead More 14.8 million. We only need one chamber to represent all Californians.
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 02:09 pm
So any group other than white is a racist group?
Miranda Klassen June 5, 2013 at 10:39 am
Congrats to all on the groundbreaking. Reesey has done an incredible job with making Lux what it isRead More today!
BlueAngel2 June 4, 2013 at 10:40 am
Vote YES on PROP A! The City Council is not experienced in real estate, zoning, construction orRead More development to make decisions for us.
CardiffCreature June 4, 2013 at 10:44 am
Prop A will not control growth. It will make sure that BOTH the council and the public get toRead More directly weigh in on the deals being brokered between big developers and the city. This won't end the indirect developer subsidies, but it sure will help.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:26 am
Yes, it will help to slow growth, by making sure that the public approves raising height limits orRead More upzoning, for developments over the parameters of a MAXIMUM of 30 ft. and two stories. Lower set height limits will not be repealed, because they are not in conflict with the initiative or the General Plan. David Ahlgren's fear and speculation is not backed up by one single fact. He just raises the usual building industry "mantra" of alleged risks created by unnamed "unintended consequences." Council's attempt at a preemptive ordinance does NOT guarantee that will be placed on the ballot in 2014, and does NOT eliminate other loopholes such as the "less-than-5-acre" exception, the "categorization of intensity of use" exception, and the height limit exception. The only loophole that Council's drafted ordinance affects is Council's ability to vote by a 4/5 supermajority on upzoing if it is done with respect to a "significant public benefit." Not only is Council's recently drafted ordinance NOT guaranteed, in that a future Council could reverse it, if it is not enacted through a public vote, but also Council's attempt at preempting the "right to vote on upzoning and raising height limits initiative" DOESN"T eliminate the other loopholes that still exist in our General Plan, Policy 3.12., which exceptions I've spelled out, here.