Editorial: City ballot initiatives should treat marijuana clinics as businesses

California’s medical marijuana regulations are often muddied by inconsistent court rulings on state and federal levels, and a lack of statewide standards for producers and consumers.

These factors have left individual cities with the challenge of filling the void with ballot measures.

Unfortunately, neither of the leading initiatives on Los Angeles’ Tuesday ballot – Proposition D and Initiative Ordinance F – offers an ideal framework for the city’s relationship with marijuana dispensaries in the area.

This board endorses Ordinance F as the best option on the table, but with reservations.

There is a possibility the city can impose an outright ban on dispensaries if no measure passes, which is why we think it is important for Los Angeles residents to at least vote for a measure as opposed to neither.

Proposition D would ban all dispensaries within city limits but would grant immunity to 135 clinics that have operated since September 2007, registered with the city, paid taxes and passed employee background checks.

Ordinance F would allow dispensaries created after 2007 to continue opening their doors, but would regulate product testing for pesticides and toxins, background checks on employees and would mandate that dispensaries provide parking for patients.

Ordinance F is far from perfect. But, it is more business-friendly than Proposition D, which is why we support it.

This board is opposed to Proposition D because its arbitrary restrictions would limit the economic freedom of businesses as well as patients’ access to care. A cap on the number of dispensaries would force some patients to travel farther to find a clinic and could lead to an upswing in prices.

Opponents of Ordinance F have said the measure would lead to an unsustainable proliferation of medical marijuana clinics in the city. But there is only so much demand for the product and both Ordinance F and Proposition D would impose similar requirements about how close dispensaries could be to schools, parks and one another. This alone would limit the number of dispensaries in the city.

Furthermore, if a portion of the revenue generated by the 20 percent tax increase included in Ordinance F is directed toward proper enforcement and regular checks on dispensaries, the city would be better able to control medical marijuana, which is still prohibited by the federal government.

Supporters of Proposition D speculate the cap on dispensaries is the result of an attempt to avoid federal intervention and potential lawsuits against the city.

However, it is still unclear whether medical marijuana enforcement is a priority at the federal level, especially in light of statements by President Barack Obama late last year that other policy points would take precedence.

Ultimately, Ordinance F addresses the need for increased regulation on dispensaries without imposing unfair restrictions on business owners who comply with city laws, giving it an edge over Proposition D.