SAN FRANCISCO — California regulators on Friday said marijuana deliveries can be made anywhere in the state, even in locales that ban cannabis. Law enforcement groups and the California League of Cities opposed the move, arguing that pot deliveries to places that ban cannabis erodes local government control and will increase crime in those areas. Read More …

The City of Sonoma’s “clip” on commercial cannabis activity will hold firm for the foreseeable future, as the City Council on Monday extended its moratorium on pot sales for another six months. The council voted 4-1 at its Oct. 22 meeting to place its third extension of an urgency ordinance banning marijuana sales, with an Read More …

Cannabis sales within the city limits may be put on hold for as much as another year, as the Sonoma City Council on Monday considers an extension of its temporary moratorium on commercial cannabis activities. Read more …

David Cook isn’t happy that the I-T made slightly less of what he considers to have been a “death threat” from Jon Early. It’s understandable that Cook was rattled by the email, but to accuse Early of threatening his life may be a bit overblown.

See the video

Due to this and other unfortunate events surrounding other council members, Mr. Cook took the opportunity to claim “outrage”, which in turn provided grounds for railing against the Sonoma County Democratic Party for stating that he and the Mayor “should change their vote”.

He very conveniently threw in that buzzword of the times, “bullying” to describe the Party’s action and demanded an apology.

Cook explained that the council’s vote to push the initiative to 2020 was the result of bad timing – the initiative came to the council too late for it to react before the county’s deadline, that it needed a thirty day report before it could come to any decision. He felt that asking for a report “was an important process of our democracy.”

Is it unreasonable to believe, considering the report could have been completed concurrently with preparing competing initiatives for this November’s ballot, that he’s only using the “democratic process” justification as cover for deliberately blocking them?

This, in part, is what the resolution said: “WHEREAS Sonoma’s City Council, on a 3-2 vote, chose to expend community resources on a pretextual 30-day “study,” with the clear objective of denying the validly qualified cannabis dispensary petition a place on the November 2018 ballot, in an effort to delay a vote until November of 2020…”

So, we could probably argue forever and a day if the study was or was not used as a pretext to deliberately deny placing the initiative on this November’s ballot.

Cook went on to invoke the concepts of “local control” and “abiding by the law” and that “a small percentage of this society” didn’t like the vote. “And they’re going to bully.” (There’s that word again.)

Excuse the questions, but *who* is that small percentage and how “small” are they really? As small as 64% of city residents who voted for Prop 64? Or is he referring to a 250 member group that happens be the most vigorous in fighting for the issue and believes in holding the council accountable? Perhaps Mr. Cook should be reminded of the difference between bullying and expressing disagreement on policy.

Mr. Cook’s final words were, “The reason I voted the way I voted is because of the timeline. It came in too late. And that’s it. That’s what social media should be talking about.”

Well, Mr. Cook, that’s exactly what we’re doing…

As the debate over whether the City of Sonoma should allow a cannabis dispensary in our midst, or at least a vote by local citizens, meanders on, I’m reminded of a similar controversy that lingered here for more than a decade, involving the rights of local vineyardists to make, and of local citizens to consume, wine and other alcoholic beverages.

It began with the passage in 1919 of the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Also known as the Volstead Act, it placed a prohibition on alcohol that dramatically affected not only the economy of Sonoma Valley, but the consumption preferences of most of its citizens, including most of the Sonoma City Council, local business leaders and the editor of the Sonoma Index-Tribune, my grand aunt, Celeste Murphy…Read More…

At the council meeting on Monday, July 23, Jon Early’s petition to place a cannabis ballot measure petition on the November was postponed to November of 2020. The council decided to order a 30-day, $25,000 study on the proposed ordinance. The delivery of this study wouldn’t be until after the Aug. 10 deadline for placing the measure on the November 2018 general election ballot. Once again, the city council has moved to thwart the will of the people. The following is a comment I made to the Comments section of the IT article mentioned in out previous post.

“That the city council would choose option 3 was a very easy call. Jon Early has no sense of this town and who the city council really is. Nor did the attorney who represented him, nor those who supported that measure. Why in heaven’s name did they think that the city council would swallow an ordinance that opened Sonoma up to all manner of cannabis businesses without allowing it any real control? And the irony is, Mr. Early’s measure never included a clause for personal outdoor cultivation because he thought *that* might be a deal-breaker. Let us remind that the Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group (not to be confused with the Sonoma Valley Cannabis Enthusiasts) played an instrumental role in the city’s decision to permit personal outdoor growing.

Councilwoman Rachel Hundley made great effort to fashion a competing ordinance that would have been a much better fit for the city of Sonoma. The majority of the council should have taken her up on it, but instead continued to cling to each other in their backward-thinking certainties. Let’s be clear. The three council members can’t keep running for cover because there is very little of it left. The more they dig in their heels, the shakier the ground becomes.

The Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group has worked tirelessly over the past year to convince the city council of the need for a local medicinal dispensary, to no avail. We will now turn our focus to helping elect new council members who will actually understand the issue and enact Councilwoman Hundley’s ordinance.

Gil Latimer

Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group