HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2015-02-23 Item 2B - Discussion - Medical Cannabis Status / Recreational Marijuana Licensing ReviewCity of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
FROM: Jack Pace, Director DCD'
BY: Nora Gierloff, Deputy DCD Director
DATE: February 17, 2015
SUBJECT: Medical Cannabis Status and review of Recreational Marijuana Licensing
ISSUE
Tukwila's current moratorium on medical cannabis collective gardens and dispensaries will
expire on May 27, 2015. Should the moratorium be renewed or should Tukwila modify the
zoning code to prohibit these uses?
BACKGROUND
In 2011, the Washington State legislature passed ESSB 5073, codified as RCW 69.51 A,
creating rules regarding medical cannabis patients, collective gardens, and medical cannabis
dispensaries. The Governor vetoed portions of the bill. The partial veto created conflicts in the
remaining portions of the bill but the general assumption is that dispensaries are prohibited by
the veto but "qualifying patients" can participate in "collective gardens ". The bill allows local
jurisdictions to adopt and enforce requirements for zoning, business licensing, health and safety
and business taxes related to the "production, processing, or dispensing of cannabis and
cannabis products within their jurisdiction" (RCW 69.51 A. 130).
Since August 15, 2011, the City Council has enacted and renewed moratoriums on cannabis
collective gardens and dispensaries. The latest renewal, Ordinance 2439, will sunset on May
27, 2015. While the moratorium was enacted and extended, the City waited, expecting the state
to provide clarification on the statutes and the conflicts created by the partial veto and to create
clarity on the relationship between medical cannabis and recreational marijuana. So far the
current legislative session has not resulted in the adoption of any new or clarified regulations for
medical cannabis.
DISCUSSION
The Federal Government's Controlled Substances Act (CSA) prohibits the possession and
distribution of marijuana for any purpose. In March, 2014, U.S. District Attorney Jenny Durkin
issued a statement that all medical cannabis dispensaries are illegal but the Federal
Department of Justice will not focus resources on individuals that are in "clear and unambiguous
compliance with existing state laws." This follows US Deputy Attorney General's statement
25
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
before the US Senate in September, 2013 that the Governor of Washington is expected to
"implement a strong and effective regulatory and enforcement system to fully protect against the
public health and safety harms..." (see Attachment A). The State of Washington is developing
a clearly regulated system for recreational marijuana but the State has yet to create laws that
provide clear or unambiguous rules for medical marijuana use, production or sale.
State law clearly does not allow medical cannabis dispensaries so allowing them would not be
legal and disallowing them would be unnecessarily redundant. However, collective gardens
remain illegal under federal law and are not subject to a State regulatory system that the
Department of Justice has indicated is necessary to avoid DOJ scrutiny.
The expectation remains that the future for medical cannabis in Washington State will involve
either merging the medical cannabis and recreational marijuana uses into a combined
regulatory system or establishing a regulatory system for medical cannabis. The current system
with strict regulations on recreational marijuana and essentially no regulation on medical
cannabis is untenable. As the recreational marijuana regulatory system matures, the impacts of
marijuana production, processing, and retail sales will be better understood.
Currently the cities of Kent, Bonney Lake and Woodinville have prohibited collective gardens.
Last March the state court of appeals upheld Kent's ordinance. If and when the Federal
Government changes the legal status of marijuana and /or if the State of Washington develops a
regulatory system for medical cannabis that satisfies the DOJ, the City of Tukwila can choose to
revisit allowing medical cannabis collective gardens in the City of Tukwila. At this time, allowing
medical cannabis in the City would have the City preempting Federal law.
Recreational Marijuana Status
At this time there are nineteen active applications for recreational marijuana producers,
processors, or retailers within Tukwila but as of January 27, 2015 the Washington State Liquor
Control Board (LCB) has yet to issue any licenses for locations within the City. No proposed
locations meet both Tukwila's zoning standards (location in Heavy Industrial or Tukwila Valley
South zones) and the LCB buffers around schools, parks, etc.
Next Steps
The Community Affairs and Parks Committee is being asked to choose between renewing the
current medical cannabis moratorium or sending an ordinance prohibiting medical cannabis
collective gardens and dispensaries to the Planning Commission for a recommendation.
Options:
1) Forward the question to the full Council for consideration at the March 9m Committee of
the Whole meeting; or
2) Recommend renewing the moratorium on medical cannabis and forward the item to the
April 27 Committee of the Whole meeting for a public hearing and adoption at the May
4'h Regular Meeting; or
3) Forward an ordinance prohibiting medical cannabis collective gardens and dispensaries
to the Planning Commission for a hearing and recommendation at their March 26th
26 Z: \DCD n Clerk's \to Melissa \COW InfoMemo Med Cannabis.dou
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
meeting followed by a hearing at the April 27th Committee of the Whole and adoption at
the May 4' Regular Meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None
GTE0707 Pi1A�[* '
Staff recommends option 3, referring an ordinance adopting a Zoning Code prohibition on
medical cannabis collective gardens and dispensaries to the Planning Commission for a hearing
and recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Statement of James M. Cole, Deputy Attorney General
Z: \DCD n Clerk's \to Melissa \COW InfoMemo Med Cannabis.docx
27
W.
STATEMENT OF
JAMES M. COLE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
FOR A HEARING ENTITLED
"CONFLICTS BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL MARIJUANA LAWS"
PRESENTED ON
SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
Attachment A
29
Testimony of James M. Cole
Deputy Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
September 10, 2013
Good afternoon Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and distinguished
Members of the Committee. I am pleased to speak with you about the guidance that the
Department recently issued to all United States Attorneys regarding marijuana enforcement
efforts. That guidance instructs our prosecutors to continue to enforce federal priorities, such as
preventing sales of marijuana by criminal enterprises, preventing violence and the use of
firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana, preventing distribution to minors, and
preventing the cultivation of marijuana on public lands — priorities that we historically have
focused on for many years — and also notes that we will continue to rely on state and local
authorities to effectively enforce their own drug laws as we work together to protect our
communities.
I. Introduction
As you know, the relevant federal statute, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA),
among other prohibitions, makes it a federal crime to possess, grow, or distribute marijuana, and
to open, rent, or maintain a place of business for any of these purposes.
For many years, all 50 states have enacted uniform drug control laws or similar
provisions that mirrored the CSA with respect to their treatment of marijuana and made the
possession, cultivation, and distribution of marijuana a state criminal offense. With such
overlapping statutory authorities, the federal government and the states traditionally worked as
partners in the field of drug enforcement. Federal law enforcement historically has targeted
sophisticated drug traffickers and organizations, while state and local authorities generally have
focused their enforcement efforts, under their state laws, on more localized and lower -level drug
activity.
Starting with California in 1996, several states have authorized the cultivation,
distribution, possession, and use of marijuana for medical purposes, under state law. Today,
twenty -one states and the District of Columbia legalize marijuana use for medical purposes
under state law, including six states that enacted medical marijuana legislation in 2013.
30
Throughout this time period, the Department of Justice has continued to work with its
state and local partners, but focused its own efforts and resources on priorities that are
particularly important to the federal government. The priorities that have guided our efforts are:
• Preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors;
• Preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs,
and cartels;
• Preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in
some form to other states;
• Preventing state - authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for
the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;
• Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of
marijuana;
• Preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health
consequences associated with marijuana use;
• Preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and
environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands; and
• Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.
Examples of our efforts have included cases against individuals and organizations who
were using the state laws as a pretext to engage in large -scale trafficking of marijuana to other
states; enforcement against those who were operating marijuana businesses near schools, parks,
and playgrounds; and enforcement against those who were wreaking environmental damage by
growing marijuana on our public lands. On the other hand, the Department has not historically
devoted our finite resources to prosecuting individuals whose conduct is limited to possession of
marijuana for personal use on private property.
II. The Department's Updated Marijuana Enforcement Guidance
In November 2012, voters in Colorado and Washington State passed ballot initiatives that
legalized, under state law, the possession of small amounts of marijuana, and made Colorado and
Washington the first states to provide for the regulation of marijuana production, processing, and
sale for recreational purposes. The Department of Justice has reviewed these ballot initiatives in
the context of our enforcement priorities.
On August 29, 2013, the Department notified the Governors of Colorado and Washington
that we were not at this time seeking to preempt their states' ballot initiatives. We advised the
Governors that we expected their states to implement strong and effective regulatory and
enforcement systems to fully protect against the public health and safety harms that are the focus
2
31
of our marijuana enforcement priorities, and that the Department would continue to investigate
and prosecute cases in Colorado and Washington in which the underlying conduct implicated our
federal interests. The Department reserved its right to challenge the state laws at a later time, in
the event any of the stated harms do materialize — either in spite of a strict regulatory scheme, or
because of the lack of one.
That same day, the Department issued a guidance memorandum to all United States
Attorneys directing our prosecutors to continue to fully investigate and prosecute marijuana
cases that implicate any one of our eight federal enforcement priorities. This memorandum
applies to our prosecutors in all 50 states and guides the exercise of prosecutorial discretion
against individuals and organizations who violate any of our stated federal interests, no matter
where they live or what the laws in their states may permit. Outside of these enforcement
priorities, however, the Department will continue to rely on state and local authorities to address
marijuana activity through enforcement of their own drug laws. This updated guidance is
consistent with our efforts to maximize our investigative and prosecutorial resources during this
time of budget challenges, and with the more general message the Attorney General delivered
last month to all federal prosecutors, emphasizing the importance of quality priorities for all
cases we bring, with an eye toward promoting public safety, deterrence, and fairness.
Our updated guidance also makes one overarching point clear: the Department of Justice
expects that states and local governments that have enacted laws authorizing marijuana - related
conduct will implement effective regulatory and enforcement systems to protect federal priorities
and the health and safety of every citizen. As the guidance explains, a jurisdiction's regulatory
scheme must be tough in practice, not just on paper. It must include strong enforcement efforts,
backed by adequate funding.
We are emphasizing comprehensive regulation and well - funded state enforcement
because such a system will complement the continued enforcement of state drug laws by state
and local enforcement officials, in a manner that should allay the threat that a state - sanctioned
marijuana operation might otherwise pose to federal enforcement interests. Indeed, a robust
system may affirmatively address those federal priorities by, for example, implementing
effective measures to prevent diversion of marijuana outside of the regulated system and to other
states, prohibiting access to marijuana by minors, and replacing an illicit marijuana trade that
funds criminal enterprises with a tightly regulated market in which revenues are tracked and
accounted for. In those circumstances, consistent with the traditional allocation of federal -state
efforts in this area, enforcement of state law by state and local law enforcement and regulatory
bodies should remain a necessary part of addressing marijuana- related activity.
32
III. Conclusion
The Department of Justice is committed to enforcing the CSA in all states, and we are
grateful for the dedicated work of our Drug Enforcement Administration agents, our federal
prosecutors, and our state and local partners in protecting our communities from the dangers of
illegal drug trafficking. The Administration also remains committed to minimizing the public
health and safety consequences of marijuana use, focusing on prevention, treatment, and support
for recovery.
As our updated guidance reflects, we are continuing our practice of targeting conduct that
implicates federal priorities and causes harm, regardless of state law. We expect our state and
local partners to continue to do so as well. In those jurisdictions that have enacted laws that
legalize and seek to regulate marijuana for some purposes, this means that strong and effective
regulatory and enforcement systems must address the threat those state laws could pose to public
safety, public health, and other law enforcement interests.
I look forward to taking your questions.
2
33