Beyond Prohibition: Redondo Beach weighs the pros and cons of legal cannabis
Illustraiton by Tim Teebken
The last two meetings of the Redondo Beach Planning Commission have dealt, in large part, with a concern that much of California has faced since voters passed Proposition 64 last November: What are we going to do about cannabis?
On May 18, after hours of public comment and deliberation over two meetings, the Commission reached a stopping point. Their recommendation to the Redondo Beach City Council is that, for now, commercial cannabis sales are to be temporarily banned within the City of Redondo Beach while City staff drafts an ordinance based on the best possible practices from existing cannabis-friendly states and municipalities. That ordinance will be brought back at a future meeting for further discussion, setting in place the next steps to expand cannabis from illegality into the mainstream.
Reactions ran the gamut from excited to cautious concern. Advocates from both the commercial and medical sectors are excited that the City of Redondo Beach is among the first South Bay cities to take a nuanced look at the role cannabis-related industries may carry in its future. Some among them have dangled the carrot of potential tax revenue from the cannabis industry as a reason for the City of Redondo Beach to look favorably upon cannabis regulation.
Law enforcement officials, however, are less excited. Police harbor concerns that cannabis-serving businesses could drive crime to an area, and that the City could unintentionally lead the area in cannabis-related injuries and medical incidents.
The members of the Redondo City Council aren’t necessarily stuck between grass and a hard place as much as they are balancing on a tightrope between the will of the people and the need for reasonable regulations.
The Adult Use of Marijuana Act, known as Prop. 64, was overwhelmingly passed by California voters, in a 57.1 to 42.9 percent spread. In doing so, personal marijuana use was made legal for adults over the age of 21 by the State of California.
The wave in favor of legalized cannabis was even greater in Redondo. Overall, 73 percent of Redondo Beach residents voted Yes on Prop. 64, with at least 72 percent of voters in each of Redondo’s five council districts voting in favor of legalization.
Prop. 64’s passage made it legal for adults of age to possess, transport and use up to 28.5 grams of cannabis on their person, and allowed for the growth and use of up to six cannabis plants.
However, recreational cannabis sales (sale to anyone without a prescription) is on hold until 2018, while the State establishes commercial regulation and clarifies licensing issues.
“I don’t think they’re going to have everything ironed out in the underlying infrastructure necessary to make it happy,” said Redondo Beach City Councilman Christian Horvath. “What we have to do here is be cautious and we have to have things in place to maintain local control.”
Horvath, representing District 3, has long been in favor of taking a careful look at the future of cannabis in Redondo.
“I think any city right now has to be doing a few differing things as they figure out how to implement the AUMA, but it has to be done in a thoughtful way,” Horvath said. “We have three things to take into consideration: Land use, public safety and public health.”
Among the chief concerns among Redondo’s Council is the need for local cannabis regulations, as with 2016’s citywide prohibition of medical marijuana-related businesses.
The prohibition was necessary, according to Redondo officials, in order to ensure that the City could eventually sort out necessary zoning issues and certification concerns. Had they left it up to the state, all a business owner would have needed to open a cannabis-related business is a state-issued permit. Setting up local regulations would allow for city officials and staff to better plan where a dispensary or cannabis-related business could set down its stakes.
“People will make assumptions that [a dispensary] will go in North Redondo, like you hear complaints about massage parlors or taekwondo studios — like another hookah shop, but with pot,” Horvath said. “I don’t see it that way…if we allow [cannabis] to be sold, I think it’d be wise to do so on a limited basis” – in other words, allowing for a maximum of one or two dispensaries in city limits. “So we don’t have the same problem massage parlors went through, and to potentially add more [dispensaries] down the line.”
The idea of a small, test-level program rings harmoniously with cannabis advocate Jonatan Cvetko.
“A pilot program is the most effective way to move forward…it’s not wise to initially only allow for just one license,” Cvetko said. “It doesn’t make sense to allow for a monopoly…and I don’t think that helps push out an illicit market.”
Cvetko is a founder of Angeles Emeralds, which represents cannabis stakeholders in unincorporated areas of L.A. County. But he came into the world of cannabis without much personal experience with the drug, attending a small parochial school until 10th grade. Moving to Redondo Union High School for his junior and senior years, he said, was a culture shock.
“People would call it: ‘RU High?’” Cvetko said, laughing.
What put him on the path to cannabis advocacy was his mother-in-law’s battle with ovarian cancer.
“For her, [cannabis] was not so miraculous, but it helped her tremendously through her chemotherapy,” Cvetko said.
Her treatment story opened the door. Cannabis use, he learned, about more than simply getting high.
“But even in the cannabis world, people will have a preconceived idea of what a cannabis user is,” Cvetko said. “Like with L.A. itself, there are a variety of demographics out there.”
His role now is breaking down preconceived notions among governmental bodies. He often leads field trips for officials to cannabis-related businesses, whether it’s grow sites, manufacturing facilities, or testing laboratories.
“The entire point is that regulators are getting hands-on experiences, and understanding what should and shouldn’t be done,” Cvetko said.
As one of the first cities in the area to consider the ramifications of cannabis legalization, he believes Redondo has an opportunity to be a leader among cities.
“I commend them for a temporary moratorium with the understanding of trying to [create regulations],” Cvetko said. “Here Redondo has an opportunity to allow cannabis and push out an illegal market.”
That’s where Redondo Beach Police Chief Keith Kauffman’s concerns arise.
“One of the main problems is the conflict between federal and state laws; that doesn’t look like it’s going to change. That’s a huge problem for us,” Kauffman said.
Cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, alongside heroin, LSD, ecstasy and peyote. The federal prohibition against cannabis ensures that federally insured banks will not touch money from cannabis businesses. Without the backing of banks, dispensaries and collectives must remain cash-only businesses.
“Any time you have a cash business that everyone knows is a cash business, you know what risks you’re taking from a law enforcement perspective,” Kauffman said.
He believes that citywide allowance of cannabis sales might open up a series of issues that would put additional strain on local police.
“With everything going on right now, our challenges in law enforcement, whatever we can do to not add additional fuel to the fire, we’re going to do…all these things that have changed with AB 109 and Proposition 47 are continuing to add fuel to the fire,” Kauffman said, referring to recent state laws that have changed rules for sentencing and jail time.
“Our concern is quality of life issues…when we talk about the cost of money, no one balances that against how much [crime] costs victims,” Kauffman said. “We’re the ones dealing with drugged driving and families that lose someone. Maybe the stats aren’t going to be huge, but…when we deal with that one family, one death is too many.”
Diane Goldstein is all too familiar with the challenges facing Redondo’s law enforcement. Goldstein is a retired Redondo Beach police officer, the department’s first female lieutenant, and worked within RBPD’s Special Investigations Unit.
But in retirement, she has become an anti-prohibition activist, speaking out against the War on Drugs as part of LEAP – Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
“We had an undercover operation at RUHS…kids were allegedly out of control, smoking pot and dealing on campus,” Goldstein said. “Two weeks after we perp walk all of these kids out, we’ve got officers saying kids are dealing drugs on campus again.”
Her belief isn’t that drugs aren’t harmful to children — far from it. But education and treatment should take precedent.
“There are better ways to deal with it than using the criminal justice system,” Goldstein said. “I think law enforcement is learning that you can’t arrest your way out of a drug issue; that’s not going to treat the underlying symptoms.”
She believes the city should form a stakeholder committee, with membership from the Beach Cities Health District, a parent, educators, firefighters, police, and members of the cannabis industry, casting a wide net to reflect the overwhelming approval Prop. 64 won in Redondo Beach.
“When voters [pass] a mandate in this fashion, that should tell us something,” Goldstein said.
“In my career, I never went to someone’s house who was stoned who beat his wife, molested kids, pillaged the neighborhood. But alcohol, absolutely,” Goldstein said.
Councilman Horvath understands the gravity of his role creating policy for the city.
“I had one resident contact me, on behalf her daughter and regarding the schools; [she said,] ‘If this is coming, we need to protect our children,’” Horvath recalled. “We have to figure out how to do this in a way that’s not engendering potential danger or crime.”
Redondo Beach, he said, can’t afford to be hasty in its decisions.
“We’re trying to be prepared and take it slow and cautious, to be ready for when and if we roll it out and to what degree,” Horvath said, referring back to the tenets of public safety, public health and land use. “I think we’ll be having a lot of discussion on this.”