Skip to content

Breaking News

A pro-cannabis law firm has filed a lawsuit against Antioch, asking a judge to overturn parts of the city s anti-marijuana cultivation ordinance, which outlaws the practice of cultivating and distributing medical marijuana, even for personal use. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)
A pro-cannabis law firm has filed a lawsuit against Antioch, asking a judge to overturn parts of the city s anti-marijuana cultivation ordinance, which outlaws the practice of cultivating and distributing medical marijuana, even for personal use. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)
PUBLISHED: | UPDATED:
var _ndnq = _ndnq || []; _ndnq.push([’embed’]);

SAN JOSE — With little discussion Tuesday, San Jose leaders approved a temporary ban on recreational marijuana sales — just one week before voters decide whether to legalize the drug.

The Bay Area’s largest city joined a growing list of cities that have banned or adopted regulations on growing, processing and selling nonmedical pot ahead of Proposition 64, a state initiative on the Nov. 8 ballot that legalizes pot use for adults.

San Jose leaders said the ban will help stop illegal pot shops from opening — if Prop. 64 passes, as polls suggest — and allows time for City Hall to come up with a regulatory scheme to oversee the new industry. San Jose was among the first cities two years ago to adopt rules for its medical marijuana collectives, whittling hundreds of scofflaw medical pot dispensaries to 16 sanctioned shops today.

With the temporary ban, city leaders are hoping to gain control over the recreational pot industry before it leads to a proliferation of shops. Other Bay Area cities including Palo Alto, Campbell, Foster City, Hayward, Davis and Martinez have all taken similar steps.

The San Jose ban is effective immediately and while there is no sunset date, city officials indicated it would remain in effect at least until 2018, when the state would begin licensing recreational marijuana stores if Prop. 64 passes. The city hopes to have its own regulations in place by then.

“We want potential cannabis entrepreneurs to know commercial recreational marijuana collectives are not allowed in San Jose,” said Michelle McGurk, an assistant to the city manager who coordinates the city’s medical marijuana policy. “We learned our lessons from our experiences with the medical marijuana dispensaries that opened up all over town.”

var _ndnq = _ndnq || []; _ndnq.push([’embed’]);

If passed by a majority of voters, Prop. 64 will allow people age 21 or older to smoke or ingest marijuana, as well as process and transport it. Individuals would be allowed to grow up to six plants indoors, but cities could ban or regulate outdoor cultivation.

The ban unanimously approved by the San Jose City Council will reiterate a prohibition on outdoor marijuana grows and ban commercial cultivating, processing, manufacturing, distributing, testing and selling of recreational weed.

While some applauded the city’s decision to be proactive in regulating nonmedical cannabis sales, others worried that San Jose won’t be able to enforce the new rules if voters approve Prop. 64 next week.

“Right now there are a number of illegal medical marijuana dispensaries and delivery services in the city and yet the city is unable to enforce its own ordinance,” said Dr. Benson Hausman, executive director of Elemental Wellness, one of San Jose’s 16 sanctioned pot shops. “You can ban something, but if you can’t enforce your ban you make yourself look a little silly.”

But, Hausman acknowledged, the city’s attempt to put the brakes on recreational pot sales — at least for now — is spurred by its past experience with medical pot.

“They had no regulations here and there was a wild growth of dispensaries,” he said. “They’re anticipating that situation, but I don’t know that they’ll be able to control it.”

Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio, who in 2009 initiated the process of regulating and taxing medical use of cannabis in San Jose, said the ban will allow time to determine appropriate locations for the recreational pot shops — and to prevent them from popping up next to schools or homes.

“I think we should look at what Colorado, Oregon and Washington are doing,” he said. “Let’s look at what worked for them and use it as a guide on where they should be located.”