Hashishi

Measure on Marijuana Regulation Back on Ballot
10-2-`07 | The Daily Californian | by Sameea Kamal

A measure proposing more oversight of Berkeley medical marijuana dispensaries has been ordered back on the ballot after its narrow rejection in the 2004 election was nullified by a judge in July.

Finalizing a tentative decision she made in July, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Winifred Smith ruled last week that the 2008 election must include a re-vote on Measure R.

Alameda County could not provide evidence of the votes after medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access asked for a recount, Smith ruled.

According to the county’s results, 50.19 percent of voters opposed the measure in Nov. 2004.

“When we all pursued the recount we were essentially obstructed in a lot of steps in the way and ultimately the county officials could not verify the votes and provide us with the recount that we requested,” said Kris Hermes, spokesperson for the Oakland-based advocacy group.

Votes were placed using electronic machines, which were adopted by the city in 2002.

The results were not transcribed to any other form and left no record other than what was on the electronic voting machines, Hermes said. When election officials tried to check the machines, they no longer contained the voting information.

Measure R would establish a community board to regulate medical marijuana facilities that are currently regulated by the city, Hermes said.

The measure could also require the city to provide Berkeley’s three medical marijuana dispensaries with licenses regardless of zoning restrictions, allow approved patients to possess more marijuana and require police to provide more detailed reports on marijuana.

“It attempted to gain greater police reporting on marijuana enforcement ... to ensure that patients aren’t being caught in the crossfire of police enforcement,” Hermes said.

Because marijuana is legal only at the state level, the licenses provided by the initiative are designed to prevent raids by federal enforcement agencies, he said.

Opponents argued that the measure could lead to the unintended proliferation of medical marijuana in the city.

“The combination of large amounts of marijuana readily on hand and no city review or permitting process presents a dangerous combination for Berkeley,” wrote a group of opponents, including then-councilmember Margaret Breland, in arguments that appeared on the 2004 ballot.

Alameda County officials said the voting machines made it difficult to retrieve evidence for a recount.

“The deciding factor was the introduction of the (electronic) voting machine,” said Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson. “Had it been a paper ballot, the main source of any recount or evidence would’ve been the paper ballot.”

The case established that verification of votes will be conducted from now on with a hardcopy printout in addition to a disc, Carson said. The electronic machines are no longer used.

“It’s taken some time to get (the technology) correct,” Carson said. “I think the judge has clearly added and aided in getting this correct and going forward.”

The results of the re-vote on the measure are likely to be similar to those of the 2004 election, Hermes said.

“Regardless of whether the initiative passes in Berkeley, medical marijuana is here to say, not only in Berkeley but in the state of California,” Hermes said.

__________________