City of Encinitas Medical Marijuana Initiative, Proposition F (November 2014)

Voting on Marijuana

Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
| Local

Local marijuana
Local marijuana tax

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Text of measure
* 2.1 Ballot question
* 2.2 Ballot summary
* 2.3 Full text
* 3 Support
* 3.1 Supporters
* 3.2 Arguments in favor
* 3.3 Official arguments
* 4 Opposition
* 4.1 Opponents
* 4.2 Arguments against
* 4.3 Official arguments
* 5 Reports and analyses
* 5.1 Impartial analysis
* 6 Path to the ballot
* 7 Related measures
* 7.1 Recreational
* 7.2 Medical
* 8 See also
* 9 External links
* 9.1 Support
* 10 Footnotes

A City of Encinitas Medical Marijuana Initiative, Proposition F ballot question, also called the Encinitas Medical Marijuana Regulation Initiative, was on the November 4, 2014 election ballot for voters in the city of Encinitas in San Diego County, California. It was defeated.

If approved, Proposition F would have repealed the city's prohibition on the public sale of marijuana, including medical marijuana, and established a set of restrictions and regulations to govern medical marijuana growth and retail in the city.[1]

The measure was also designed to:[2]

* prohibit dispensaries from operating within a 600-foot radius of schools or playgrounds;
* require a 1,000-foot buffer between dispensaries designed to limit the number of dispensaries in the city;
* require marijuana dispensaries to have security cameras, alarms, safety lighting, secured marijuana storage and licensed security personnel on site during business hours;
* restrict business hours, allowing operation of dispensaries only from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.;
* prohibit marijuana from being visible from outside of dispensaries;
* prohibit providing marijuana to a minor unless the minor is a qualified patient accompanied by a parent or guardian;
* require the labeling of all products that contain marijuana;
* ban alcohol from being sold or consumed at the site of any dispensary; and
* impose a 2.5 percent sales tax on marijuana sales.

Supporters argued that the measure would have ensured that patients and sick residents would have convenient access to medical marijuana.[3]

Opponents argued that the measure would have increased drug abuse and drug-related crime in the city. They also pointed out that the city attorney's impartial analysis of the measure said the legal authority of the city to impose a 2.5 percent sales tax only on marijuana and enforce several other provisions in the initiative was questionable according to state and federal law.[4]

This initiative was nearly identical to Proposition J, which was voted on by La Mesa residents in the same November 2014, general election. La Mesa City residents, however, approved Proposition J.

## Election results[edit]

City of Encinitas, Proposition F

Result| Votes| Percentage
d No| 16,229| 62.76%
Yes|  9,629|  37.24%

Election results via: San Diego County Registrar of Voters

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot question[edit]

The question on the ballot was:[1]

“  |

Shall the ordinance amending the Encinitas Municipal Code to authorize and regulate medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of Encinitas be adopted?[5]

|  ”

|
|

### Ballot summary[edit]

The official ballot summary provided for Proposition F by the city attorney's office was:[6]

“  |

AN INITIATIVE AMENDING THE ENCINITAS MUNICIPAL CODE TO AUTHORIZE AND REGULATE MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES IN ENCINITAS The Encinitas Municipal Code (Municipal Code) presently prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries (dispensaries) in the City of Encinitas.

This initiative is citizen-sponsored and would amend the Municipal Code to repeal that prohibition and authorize dispensaries to locate (without size restrictions) in non-residential zones appropriate for commercial, manufacturing, industrial or retail sales uses, including health care uses.

The initiative prohibits dispensaries from locating within 1,000 feet of another dispensary or within a 600 foot radius of a school or playground.

The initiative requires City officials to issue an operating permit and business registration to any dispensary applicant that: (1) demonstrates compliance with location requirements,

(2) presents a plan for compliance with operational requirements (see below) and

(3) has no directors which have been convicted of a serious felony as defined pursuant to California Penal Code Section 1197.2(c) in the past 7 years.

The initiative also prohibits law enforcement officials from arresting or seizing marijuana (including marijuana plants) from qualified patients, caregivers and dispensary personnel.

The initiative would impose the following operational requirements on dispensaries:

(1) licensed security personnel on site during operating hours,

(2) security cameras and alarms,

(3) safety lighting,

(4) secured storage of marijuana,

(5) restricted hours of operation (between 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.),

(6) prohibits consumption or dispensing of alcoholic beverages on site,

(7) prohibits marijuana from being visible from the exterior of any dispensary,

(8) products containing marijuana must be identified by label,

(9) prohibits providing marijuana to any minor (18 or under) unless the minor is a qualified patient accompanied by a parent or guardian and

(10) prohibits on-site medical evaluations for medical marijuana use.

The initiative further provides that dispensary sales shall be subject to a sales tax of two and one-half percent (2.5%) in addition to other state and local sales tax that may be applicable to sales transactions in Encinitas.

Lastly, the initiative provides that if any of its provisions are determined to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect to the extent legally possible.[5]

|  ”

|
|

—Encinitas City Attorney[6]

### Full text[edit]

The full text of the initiative ordinance that would have been enacted by the approval of Proposition F is available here.

## Support[edit]

Yes on F campaign logo

### Supporters[edit]

A Yes on F: Regulate Cannabis Encinitas campaign was started to urge voters to approve Proposition F.[7][8]

The group called Citizens for Patient Rights also supported Proposition F.[9]

The following individuals signed the official arguments in favor of Proposition F:[3]

* Beth Herman, nurse, healthcare educator and Encinitas resident
* James Schmachtenberger, former chairman of the Patient Care Association when it still existed and a member of the Citizens for Patients Rights advocacy group
* Ann Stevenson, Encinitas resident
* David Steel
* Bob E. Blake, M.D., physician and Encinitas resident

The Yes on F website also listed the following endorsements of the initiative:[7]

* San Diego County Democratic Party
* San Diego Chapter of Americans for Safe Access
* San Diego County Libertarian Party
* San Diego County Green Party
* San Diego County Democratic Women’s Club
* San Diego County Young Democrats
* Chicano Democratic Association
* California and San Diego County NORML
* California Cannabis Industry Association
* Judge James Gray (Retired)
* Dianne Goldstein, Lieutenant Commander, Redondo Beach Police Department (Ret.)
* Michael Cindrich, Former Prosecutor, San Diego District Attorney’s Office
* Leo E. Laurence, Former Deputy Sheriff
* David Bronner, President, Doctor Bronner’s Magic Soap

### Arguments in favor[edit]

James Schmachtenberger, a member of the pro-Measure F campaign, said, “Patients who need safe and consistent access for severe medical needs are going to have the opportunity to get the medication they need. It will bring the city new revenue and serve to reduce crime.”[2]

Schmactenberger cited studies he claimed showed that crime rates drop in cities with marijuana dispensaries due to a reduction in the illegal trafficking of the drug. He said, “When you factor in all of the transactions that happen at a storefront, those aren’t occurring on the black market. So on the whole, you see an overall reduction of crime."[2]

He also claimed that Proposition F would have decreased the number of teens and young adults using marijuana since it would have reduced the black-market sales of marijuana. He explained, "The drug dealer on the corner doesn't care if his customer is 50 or 16. That doesn't happen in a regulated environment. If someone wants to keep their license, they are never going to make an exception.”[2]

### Official arguments[edit]

The following was submitted as the official arguments in favor of Proposition F:[3]

“  |

MEASURE F, REGULATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA COMPASSIONATE USE DISPENSARIES, will allow safe, regulated access to medical marijuana for qualified patients in the City of Encinitas by allowing medical marijuana dispensaries, operating in full compliance with California State law.

In 1996, the majority of voters in California and in the City of Encinitas voted for the Compassionate Use Act, which allowed patient access to medical marijuana. In 2010, the voters of Encinitas again chose to defeat the black market and reaffrmed their desire for regulation and oversight of marijuana, by voting overwhelmingly in favor of MEASURE 19.

Despite the clear will of the public, there is stil no safe access to medical marijuana in the City of Encinitas.

Research from UC San Diego ~as shown medical marijuana to be an effective treatment for the effects of cancer radiation therapy, debilitating arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and other pain conditions affecting the large senior population in our City. Today, Encinitas patients are forced to use less effective and more costly pharmaceuticals to manage their pain or to turn to black market dealers for their medicine.

MEASURE F ensures the safety of patients and the community by including security requirements including alarm systems, security cameras, lighting standards, and restricting hours of operation.

MEASURE F ensure that medical marijuana dispensaries are located in appropriate areas. It prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries in residential zones and areas where children congregate.

MEASURE F requires a large buffer between dispensaries to allow patient access, while avoiding a concentration of dispensaries in Encinitas.

MEASURE F includes cost recovery fees to ensure that the safe access to qualified patients does not become a financial burden on the city.

Join us in supporting patients and caregivers in Encinitas! Vote "Yes" on MEASURE F.[5]

|  ”

|
|

—Beth Herman, James Schmachtenberger, Ann Stevenson, David Steel and Bob E. Blake, M.D.[3]

## Opposition[edit]

### Opponents[edit]

On September 10, 2014, the Encinitas City Council unanimously voted to oppose Measure F, although they were restricted from using city funds to campaign in opposition to it.[10]

The following individuals signed the official arguments in opposition to Proposition F:[4]

* Scott Chipman, member of San Diego for Safe Neighborhoods
* John Redman, executive director for Californians for Drug Free Youth
* Dennis Cook, Encinitas resident
* Fred Frumin, pediatrician and Encinitas resident
* Nancy Logan, Encinitas resident

### Arguments against[edit]

Opponents of the measure argued that legal medical marijuana would be abused by people who are not sick. They also proposed that Proposition F would make Encinitas “the pot destination for North County," bringing additional crime, noise and odor nuisances and requirements for additional police services with it. Critics also expressed concern that marijuana could end up in the hands of the city's youth.[2]

Opponents cited crime data from San Diego that they alleged indicates areas with marijuana storefronts have about double the property crimes and violent crimes as areas that do not have marijuana dispensaries. In the official ballot argument in opposition to Proposition F, opponents wrote, “Marijuana storefronts have been crime magnets because they have ready cash and an easy product to steal.”[2]

Scott Chipman, a San Diego anti-drug activist who had fought against the proliferation of dispensaries, called medical marijuana retail “a lawless industry.” He continued to say, “To believe that this industry is going to follow regulations is a joke."[2]

Nancy Logan, a local resident, argued that the very fact that marijuana would have been allowed and readily available in the city would have encouraged more use by underage residents. She said, “In a nutshell, if becomes permissible [sic] for our youth to use marijuana because the youth will say, ‘Well, if the city allows it, than it is OK [sic],’ When accessibility goes up, the perception of harm goes down.”[2]

Mayor Kristen Gaspar said, “I can’t imagine weaving medical marijuana dispensaries into the fabric of our community."[10]

Councilman Tony Kranz said, “It is not something Encinitas needs at this point.”[10]

### Official arguments[edit]

The following was submitted as the official arguments in opposition to Proposition F:[4]

“  |

Do not be misled: The pot shop measure is not about compassionate use of marijuana for seriously ill patients. State law already allows for the closed network exchange of marijuana between a patient and a caregiver who has "...consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health and safety of the patient" (Attorney General Guidelines) It does not allow for the retail sale of marijuana from a storefront.

This initiative would allow up to seven pot shops in Encinitas, making Encinitas the pot destination for North County; all nine neighboring cities have banned them because of the negative consequences they have experienced. This includes Del Mar and Solana Beach who voted against pot shop measures in 2012.

We have watched San Diego try to unsuccessfully regulate pot shops and know that it is a lawless business. San Diego data indicates census tracts with marijuana storefronts have twice as many property and violent crimes as census tracts without them. Marijuana storefronts have been crime magnets because they have ready cash and an easy product to steal.

In addition, research indicates that marijuana is being diverted from these shops to our teens. in the San Dieguito region, teen use of marijuana has been increasing for the last five years, interfering with academic success and motivation. Adolescent treatment counselors indicate that teens name marijuana 75% of the time as the reason they are coming to alcohol and drug treatment programs.

City attorneys' impact analyses state that the measure's proposed 2.5% additional sales tax can't happen because it violates state tax law. Furthermore Encintas will incur substantial costs, from public safety to court expenses, trying to regulate pot shops.

Vote NO. Pot shops are unnecessary, pose known regulation problems, provide easy access to youth and will erode Encinitas reputation and quality of life.[5]

|  ”

|
|

—Scott Chipman, John Redman, Dennis Cook, Fred Frumin and Nancy Logan[4]

## Reports and analyses[edit]

### Impartial analysis[edit]

The following is the impartial analysis of Proposition F prepared by the office of the city attorney:[11]

“  |

The Encinitas Municipal Code (Municipal Code) prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries (dispensaries) in Encinitas. The measure, placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters, would amend the Municipal Code to repeal that prohibition and authorize dispensaries to locate (without size restrictions) in non-residential zones appropriate for commercial, manufacturing, industrial or retail sales uses, including health care uses. The measure would prohibit dispensaries from locating within 1,000 feet of another dispensary and within a 600 foot radius of schools or playgrounds. The measure would require that City officials issue an operating permit and business registration to any dispensary applicant that: (1) demonstrates compliance with location requirements, (2) presents a plan for compliance with operational requirements (see below) and (3) has no directors which have been convicted of a serious felony (defined pursuant to California Penal Code Section 1197.2(c)) in the past 7 years. The measure would prohibit law enforcement officials from arresting, prosecuting, or seizing marijuana from, qualified patients, caregivers and dispensary personnel who comply with the terms of the measure and applicable state law.

The measure would impose the following operational requirements on dispensaries: (1) licensed security personnel on site during operating hours, (2) security cameras and alarms, (3) safety lighting, (4) secured marijuana storage, (5) restricted operating hours (between 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.), (6) prohibits consumption or dispensing of alcoholic beverages on site, (7) prohibits marijuana from being visible from the exterior of any dispensary, (8) products containing marijuana must be identified by label, (9) prohibits providing marijuana to any minor (18 or under) excepting a qualified minor patient accompanied by a parent or guardian, and (10) prohibits on-site evaluations for medical marijuana use.

The measure imposes a two-and-one-half (2.5) percent sales tax on every transaction involving medical marijuana in the City, which would be reduced to one (1) percent if a statewide tax is imposed on such transactions. Any such taxes collected would be deposited in the City’s general fund to be used for general governmental purposes.

A legal question exists as to whether the measure’s taxation provisions, which propose a unique City tax on medical marijuana exceeding the uniform sales tax rate imposed by California law, would require the Board of Equalization to cease collecting all sales tax in Encinitas.

Additionally, legal questions exist as to whether California and/or federal law authorizes the operation of dispensaries in the manner authorized by the measure including: (1) because marijuana is illegal under federal law, whether the City would be in violation of state and/or federal law by issuing dispensary operating permits as required pursuant to the measure; (2) whether City employees who issue permits as required pursuant to the measure might be prosecuted by the federal government for violating federal criminal law; and (3) whether the measure improperly attempts to amend state criminal law by altering the ability of state law enforcement officials to arrest and prosecute individuals for state law violations.[5]

|  ”

|
|

—Encinitas City Attorney[11]

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

This measure was put on the ballot through a successful initiative petition.[11]

## Related measures[edit]

### Recreational[edit]

a Washington D.C. Marijuana Legalization, Initiative 71 (November 2014)

Colorado:

* Nine local 2014 marijuana measures in Colorado

Maine:

a City of Lewiston Recreational Marijuana Legalization Measure (November 2014)
a City of South Portland Recreational Marijuana Legalization Measure (November 2014)
Town of York Recreational Marijuana Legalization Measure (November 2014)

Massachusetts:

* Massachusetts Congressional Districts Marijuana Legalization Public Policy Question Advisory Votes - Eight Districts (November 2014)

Michigan:

* Local marijuana measures in Michigan

New Mexico:

a Santa Fe County Marijuana Decriminalization Advisory Question (November 2014)
a Bernalillo County Marijuana Decriminalization Advisory Question, Measure 1 (November 2014)
City of Albuquerque Marijuana Decriminalization Measure (November 2014)
City of Santa Fe Marijuana Decriminalization Initiative (November 2014)

Wisconsin:

a Dane County State Legalization of Marijuana Referendum (April 2014)

### Medical[edit]

California:

a City of Santa Ana Council-Referred Medical Marijuana Regulation Ordinance, Measure BB (November 2014)
d City of Santa Ana Medical Cannabis Restriction and Limitation Initiative, Measure CC (November 2014)
d City of La Mesa Medical Marijuana Initiative, Proposition J (November 2014)
d City of Encinitas Medical Marijuana Initiative, Proposition F (November 2014)
d Nevada County Medical Marijuana Cultivation, Measure S (November 2014)
a Butte County Medical Marijuana Ordinance 4075 Referendum, Measure A (November 2014)
d Butte County Medical Marijuana Initiative, Measure B (November 2014)
a Shasta County Outdoor Medical Marijuana Ordinance Referendum, Measure A (November 2014)
d Lake County "Medical Marijuana Control Act" Initiative, Measure O (November 2014)
d Lake County "Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration Act" Initiative, Measure P (November 2014)
d City of Weed Permitting Licensing of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Advisory Question, Measure L (November 2014)
a City of Weed Outdoor Marijuana Cultivation Ban Advisory Question, Measure K (November 2014)
a Lake County Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance 2997 Referendum, Measure N (June 2014)
City of Imperial Beach "Compassionate Access Ordinance" Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Act (June 2014)
City of Napa Medical Marijuana Dispensary Referendum (November 2014)
City of San Jose Medical Marijuana Regulation Act of 2014 (November 2014)

## See also[edit]

* Local marijuana on the ballot
* San Diego County, California ballot measures
* November 4, 2014 ballot measures in California

## External links[edit]

|  Suggest a link

|

* San Diego County Elections Office website

### Support[edit]

* Citizens for Patient Rights facebook page
* Yes on F: Regulate Cannabis Encinitas facebook page
* Yes on F: Regulate Cannabis Encinitas website

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund, "San Diego County Local Propositions," archived September 22, 2014
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 The Coast News, "Medical marijuana dispensaries on Nov. ballot," September 11, 2014
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 City of Encinitas Elections Office website, "Arguments in favor of Proposition F," archived September 22, 2014
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Encinitas Elections Office website, "Arguments in opposition to Proposition F," archived September 22, 2014
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Yes on F: Regulate Cannabis Encinitas website, "Summary of Proposition F," archived September 22, 2014
7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Yes on F: Regulate Cannabis Encinitas website, accessed September 22, 2014
8. ↑ Yes on F: Regulate Cannabis Encinitas facebook page, accessed September 22, 2014
9. ↑ Citizens for Patient Rights facebook page, accessed September 22, 2014
10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 UT San Diego, "Encinitas council takes stand against Measure F," September 11, 2014
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 Encinitas City Elections Office website, "Impartial Analysis of Proposition F," archived September 22, 2014

v • e

Local ballot measures in California

Counties|

Alameda • Alpine • Amador • Butte • Calaveras • Colusa • Contra Costa • Del Norte • El Dorado • Fresno • Glenn • Humboldt • Imperial • Inyo • Kern • Kings • Lake • Lassen • Los Angeles • Madera • Marin • Mariposa • Mendocino • Merced • Modoc • Mono • Monterey • Napa • Nevada • Orange • Placer • Plumas • Riverside • Sacramento • San Benito • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Joaquin • San Luis Obispo • San Mateo • Santa Barbara • Santa Clara • Santa Cruz • Shasta • Sierra • Siskiyou • Solano • Sonoma • Stanislaus • Sutter • Tehama • Trinity • Tulare • Tuolumne • Ventura • Yolo • Yuba

* * *

Analysis|

Laws governing local ballot measures in California • Ballot measure information on California county websites • Costs of administering local elections • Required approval rates for local California ballot measures

* * *

2021|

March 2 • May 4 • June 8 • June 29 • August 31

* * *

2020|

March 3 • April 14 • May 5 • June 2 • June 23 • August 25 • November 3

* * *

2019|

February 26 • March 5 • March 19 • March 26 • April 9 • May 7 • June 4 • August 27 • November 5

* * *

2018|

January 23 • January 30 • February 27 • March 6 • June 5 • November 6

* * *

2017|

January 10 • February 28 • March 7 • March 28 • April 4 • April 11 • May 2 • May 9 • May 16 • June 6 • July 11 • August 22 • August 29 • October 17 • November 7

* * *

2016|

January 26 • February 23 • March 8 • April 12 • April 19 • May 3 • June 7 • November 8

* * *

2015|

January 6 • February 24 • March 3 • March 10 • March 24 • April 14 • May 5 • May 19 • June 2 • June 23 • August 25 • September 1 • October 6 • November 3 • November 17

* * *

2014|

February 4 • February 11 • March 4 • April 8 • May 6 • June 3 • July 8 • September 2 • November 4

* * *

2013|

March 5 • March 12 • April 2 • April 9 • May 7 • May 21 • June 4 • June 11 • June 18 • July 2 • July 16 • July 23 • August 27 • November 5

* * *

2012|

February 7 • March 6 • March 13 • April 6 • April 10 • May 1 • May 8 • June 5 • July 10 • August 28 • September 18 • November 6

* * *

2011|

January 25 • March 1 • March 8 • April 5 • April 12 • May 3 • June 7 • June 21 • July 12 • August 30 • November 8 • November 15 • November 22

* * *

2010|

January 12 • February 2 • February 23 • March 2 • March 9 • April 13 • May 4 • May 25 • June 8 • June 15 • June 22 • July 13 • August 24 • August 31 • September 21 • November 2

* * *

2009|

January 13 • February 24 • March 3 • March 10 • April 21 • May 5 • May 19 • June 2 • June 9 • June 16 • June 23 • June 30 • July 21 • August 4 • August 25 • August 28 • November 3 • November 17 • December 8 • December 15

* * *

2008|

February 5 • March 4 • April 8 • June 3 • June 24 • July 22 • August 26 • November 4

* * *

2007|

March 6 • May 7 • November 6

* * *

2006|

March 7 • April 11 • May 2 • June 6 • November 7

* * *

Political topics|

Advisory votes • Binding arbitration • Business taxes • City charters • Election and voting laws • Gambling • Gann overrides • Hotel taxes • Incorporations • Immigration • Jurisdictional boundaries • Labor • Marijuana • Marijuana taxes • Mottos • Municipal bonds • Parcel taxes • Pensions • Project-Labor Agreements • Recall • Red light cameras • Rent control • Salaries of local officials • Sales taxes • School bonds • Term limits • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes • Zoning and land use

* * *

Tax measures|

Business taxes • Hotel taxes • Marijuana taxes • Oil and gas • Parcel taxes • Real estate transfer taxes • Sales taxes • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy