EDITOR: The article of June 24, “CalFocus: Often-destructive pot now treated like any business,” is an alarming opinion piece that is sensationalistic and does not qualify as objective truth.

Your readership would have been better served had it been made aware of a much more balanced view that refers to the very same research cited by the author. “Marijuana May Not Lower Your IQ” (Scientific American, May 2020) reported that later, better structured studies, including one performed with the same data from the original research, found no relationship between marijuana use and falling IQ.

For publications that have covered the local cannabis industry in a relatively honest manner, the Sonoma Index-Tribune and North Bay Business Journal have done it a disservice by not performing their due diligence and green-lighting an unbalanced and deceptive piece written by a third-rate syndicated columnist of dubious intent. The decision to publish it seems unprincipled, and cynical at that, considering the advertising dollars involved.

Gil Latimer

Sonoma

The business of cannabis continues to be an issue in Sonoma. It shouldn’t be. After nearly five years of hard work by patients, advocates and the City Council, Sonoma now has an ordinance that permits two dispensary storefronts. However, in keeping with the issue’s history of being kicked down a rocky road, the process for permitting a second dispensary appears to be stalled by a mix of incredulity and less informed experiences of some local officials.

A certain amount of skepticism among city electeds and the community at large is understandable. However, we remind readers that Proposition 64 was supported by 62% of Sonoma voters, more than any of the other county’s cities, or the county itself.

There are several reasons why an additional dispensary contributes to the city and the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens…

Recently, some council members expressed support to permit one additional walk-in dispensary with delivery service. We agree, and believe there are a number of reasons why this would be in the best interest of medical patients, adult consumers and the city.

Of course, there are arguments against allowing an additional dispensary in Sonoma…

Now that Measure Y has failed, it becomes even more vital that the Sonoma City Council find a way to quickly renew the currently stalled process for a local dispensary.

This could also be viewed as an opportunity to treat cannabis businesses like other legal businesses. Sonoma’s current RFP process is overly restrictive, expensive and time consuming. The city should provide a more streamlined process that will mitigate the current delay and bring a dispensary opening closer to the original timeline.

In addition, the city’s ordinance should be amended to permit at least one additional walk-in dispensary. No single business should be allowed to monopolize the market space. Competition is a healthy part of any industry. It results in better prices, more product choices, higher quality products and innovative services. Consumers deserve no less.

Gil Latimer

Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group

EDITOR: As a member of the Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group, I found the City Council’s recent decision to deny patients access to a local dispensary shameful and embarrassing.

Our group’s 250 members have advocated for a dispensary/delivery service within Sonoma for nearly a year. We’ve always offered assistance and information to the council as it worked to create a comprehensive cannabis ordinance.

Despite face-to-face discussions and the reams of material SVCG provided, and despite the town hall meetings that showed overwhelming support for a dispensary, the majority of the council continued to rely on ‘war on drugs’ perceptions and voted to severely limit the right to safe, local access to medical cannabis….

“There are many misperceptions, fueled by old stigmas and fears, about cannabis,” said Gil Latimer. He’s a member of the ad hoc Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group, whose members are hoping the council will reconsider its ordinance when it receives its second reading on Wednesday, May 30. “We aren’t talking about fields of cannabis plants waving in the wind here, but rather up to only six plants for personal use.”