Emotions heat up as Kent City Council committee debates medical marijuana moratorium

Medical marijuana lit up emotions at a public hearing Monday evening in Kent.

The Kent City Council’s Economic and Community Development Committee scheduled the public hearing at City Hall concerning the six-month moratorium on medical marijuana facilities that was passed July 5 by the full council on a 5-2 vote. The committee considered moving a recommendation for a collective garden definition and zoning options to the full council.

The committee members, Council President Jamie Perry, Councilwoman Debbie Ranniger and Councilwoman Elizabeth Albertson, voted 2-1 to table the issue until its next meeting after some heated discussion. Albertson voted against tabling.

During the hearing, six people testified with five speaking in favor of moving a recommendation to the full council allowing collective gardens.

Mayor Suzette Cooke testified that the gardens were not a business and should be in residential areas.

The other five spoke in favor of allowing collective gardens in designated commercial manufacturing and industrial zones.

Jennifer La Doux testified the city of Seattle has dealt with the issue of allowing collective gardens.

“If the city of Seattle can do it, please follow that example,” she said.

La Doux noted she was unable to drive because of multiple sclerosis and she needed a safe place to get medical marijuana. She stated she was able to get to Evergreen Holistic in Kent.

Jessica King, owner of Suzie Q’s in Kent, which she said is a collective garden, said it was important to allow people to have options.

“Not everyone has the option for full on grows at the facilities,” King said. “There are so many strains out there. Being able to go and ask what option do you have, or what option do you have. Having the option for them to go around and see what they want, that is what is important.”

Suzie Q’s had not reopened since being closed July 6 by the city. Evergreen Holistic, owned by Charles Lambert and Herbal Choice Caregivers, owned by Deryck Tsang, were also closed but both reopened and are operating as collective gardens.

Philip Dawdy, representing the Washington Cannabis Association, Evergreen Holistic and Suzie Q’s, said he was involved in writing the legislative bill that was partially vetoed by Gov. Chris Gregoire in May.

According to Dawdy, the law department left out part of the language in the bill referring to rotating members in a collective garden, allowing anywhere from three to 10 members of the garden at any time.

Dawdy said the intent was to permit members to rotate in and out of collective gardens.

Cooke was the last to speak during the public hearing. She stated in her view a collective garden was not a business

“It is 10 people, who are qualifying patients, who get together to grow their own marijuana and to be able to distribute among themselves,” she said.

Cooke said this would not be in a commercial area because of commercial rates, but in a home.

“The option in a residential area makes it much more practical for people interested in having a collective garden,” Cooke said.

The mayor added since a collective is not a business, the city would not be in the business of regulating what is a collective garden and what is not.

Cooke also said the issue of rotating members in a co-op or collective garden was not the intent of the state law.

“My interpretation is, it is not OK to have them rotating in and out every day or two so they can shop around,” Cooke said. “That is not the intent of the co-op, that is the intent of the dispensaries, which are not legal.”

During committee discussion, Albertson said the recommendation should be moved forward because it was a moral issue involving sick people who needed the medical marijuana.

“I don’t want to chase people to the streets,” Albertson said. “I don’t want them to find their sketchy nephew to go out and get them marijuana.”

Both Ranniger and Perry struggled with the issue of collective gardens versus dispensaries and the definition of collective gardens.

“I’m just not comfortable drawing a line in the sand at this point until we have a clear definition what really a collective garden is,” Ranniger said. “It seems like there are multiple definitions out there. Just because we say this is what we are going to use doesn’t mean we are going to be allowed to use it as a definition.”

At the beginning of the committee meeting, Assistant City Attorney David Galazin stated dispensaries are illegal under state law.

Galazin said the city must be careful to not set up a collective garden system that allows “defacto dispensaries, which is clearly illegal under state law.”

The attorney said that could attract the attention of federal prosecutors.

Marijuana is still illegal according to federal law. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration lists it as a Schedule 1 narcotic.

Galazin said federal prosecutors are not interested in going after legitimate patients, caregivers or doctors, but U.S. attorneys will not allow medical marijuana to be used as a “shield to hide drug dealing and other criminal behavior.”

There was plenty of discussion among committee members.

“My crazy legal mind tells me we have a state law that does not allow dispensaries but allows collective gardens,” said Perry, who is an attorney. “So as a City Council member I want to follow that law and allow collective gardens and not dispensaries. I do not understand how any of these options in front of us do that.

“What we have here is allowing dispensaries… So we have to come up with another definition for what a collective garden is…”

Albertson wanted to move the issue forward to the full council.

“We have to take a moral stand, and go, yeah this sucks,” Albertson said. “This definition is about as clear as mud soup…. There have been times in our history when the government has been wrong about things. This is one of those times. If I have the ability to right a little bit of that wrong in my corner of the world for a short period of time until smarter heads prevail, I’m going to do it.”

Perry wanted better options before moving the issue forward.

“What I said from day one was I want to do it right,” Perry said.

The issue became more emotional at that point of the hearing when Albertson said, “I’m hearing we are not going to pass anything out of committee, it is not going to be on the agenda and people are going to die in our city without their medication on our watch.”

“What you are hearing is we need a bit more time to look at this,” Perry said.

Ranniger said the issue was being a responsible regulator and “taking the time to get it right.”

Albertson asked Ranniger if she had visited one of the facilities. Ranniger said that was not the issue.

Albertson and Ranniger sparred over what a “nonfavorable outcome” would be if the recommendation went forward.

Albertson stated she had been “doing my research and I’ve been going to these places, I’ve been talking to the people, that’s why I’m ready. I guess I would appreciate if the rest of the committee would do the same.”

Perry said, “I don’t want to pass something that isn’t in compliance with the intent of banning dispensaries. If we don’t allow dispensaries and we allow collective gardens and we pass something that allows dispensaries, what are we doing?”

Dawdy confronted Cooke as she left the meeting following the committee’s action to table the issue. He asked her when she was running for office. He then said he would find someone to run against her, “and then you will be done lady.”