(Tentative) No on JJ: We need reasonable regulation on Medical Marijuana

Nobody submitted an argument against Measure JJ, so at first I assumed that it is not a big deal. Then I looked for news articles, and found one that reminded me why this is on the ballot. This is a re-submission of Measure R from 2004. That measure was declared defeated by less than 200 votes, but a recount was impossible with the old Dieblod electronic voting machines. So a judge put it back on this ballot.

So I went back and looked at my 2004 analysis. It sounded reasonable, so here's an updated version:

This far-reaching reform would make medical marijuana clubs exempt from city permits, with no limits on how much pot they can have. Measure JJ is a comprehensive reform of the city's approach to medical marijuana. I don't like the "war on drugs" and I understand the need for medical marijuana. It looks like some of Measure JJ's elements make sense (for example, the "Peer Review Committee" sounds sensible). But this is a case of the initiative process allowing the extreme version of reform to go on the ballot, when the best solution would be for the
the City Council to come up with a useful compromise. Measure JJ has two provisions that cause me concern:

First, Measure JJ would say that the city must give a permit without a public hearing to any medical marijuana club that wanted to set up shop in any area zoned commercial. Now I'm not a big fan of public hearings every time a business changes hands or changes use, but this goes farther than I'd like. The city should be able to review and approve the location of a new cannabis club. Measure JJ would take that authority away. Read the City Attorney's analysis, #6.

Second, Measure JJ would eliminate all numeric limits on how much marijuana anyone could posses or grow (except you couldn't have more than 10 plants that were visible from a neighboring property). Read the City Attorney's analysis, #1 & #2. This seems as if it would make it pretty easy to become a major dealer: get yourself licensed as a primary caregiver. Grow unlimited pot. Use a little for medical use, and sell a lot on the open market. This isn't theoretical: I know someone who was trying to do just that a few years ago. If you're a fan of legalization, you might say that sounds fine. But this isn't legalization. The high danger/high profit characteristics of the current drug trade, the aspects that cause the violence and are the best arguments for legalization, remain. Cannabis clubs with unlimited supply would be a great target for armed robberies, as has already happened multiple times at one of the city's existing clubs. We don't need that to be a bigger problem.

So I'm inclined to vote No on JJ, feeling that we need reasonable regulation, not complete exemption from city control. My only hesitation is that there's no ballot argument opposing it.

Counter-arguments welcome. But please, don't accuse me of not feeling the pain of suffering people. I get that. This is about unintended consequences.