LAW AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Jay Schenirer, Chair, District 5
Jeff Harris, Vice Chair, District 3
Katie Valenzuela, District 4
Eric Guerra, District 6
COMMITTEE STAFF
Wendy Klock-Johnson, Assistant City Clerk
Steve Itagaki, Supervising Deputy City Attorney
Consuelo Hernandez, Director of Governmental Affairs
Law and Legislation
Committee
City Hall-Council Chamber
915 I Street, 1st Floor
Published by the Office of the City Clerk
(916) 808-5163
CORRESPONDENCE
Description of Attached: Correspondence received after Agenda was published.
For the Meeting of: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 11:00 a.m.
Agenda Item: Discussion Item 2
2. Workshop #4: Policy Recommendations on Ownership, Land Use and Economic/Fiscal Issues in Cannabis
File ID: 2022-00927
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Conduct a workshop and pass a Motion to forward a package of recommendations to Council for consideration on the Sacramento Comprehensive Cannabis Study as it relates to: 1) ownership; 2) land use; and 3) taxation.
Contact: Davina Smith, Cannabis Manager, 916-808-4772,
[email protected]; Zarah Cruz, Program Specialist, 916-808-8925, [email protected], Office of Cannabis Management, Office of the City Manager
From: Ann Ross
To: Public Comment
Subject: Consumption Use for Pot Use
Date: Monday, May 9, 2022 3:06:33 PM
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I want to go on record as opposing these lounges.
My biggest concern is after these people are using, they will need to get home. I don’t believe they would be calling for rides home! No, they will just add to the erratic drivers that are on the road now. What does this say to our young people – that the only way to have fun together is to use??
I have lived in Sacramento most of my life, and our way of life has seriously eroded since drugs have been easily obtainable.
Pot is a gateway drug to heroin and other serious drugs. I’ve lost extended family members to this pollutant and it all started with marijuana as kids.
You can see the result of the abuse by driving around our City and observing the many homeless who are addicted. So many have lost their minds to heavy drug use. Yes, I know there are many on our streets that have mental issues unrelated to drug abuse, but let’s be real – the availability of easily purchased drugs; the lack of places to get clean if they so desire; and limited manpower in our police department to control these people - have destroyed our peaceful community. Even our once beautiful bike trail is dangerous, and much of its beauty destroyed. What started this downward trend? I would say a lot of it started with a so-called "harmless" gateway drug: Pot.
Do we as a City really believe having a Consumption Lounge for pot use is in our citizens’ (especially young adults) best interest?
Please vote against this.
Annabelle Ross
From: Lynn Silver
To: Public Comment
Subject: Law and Legislation Committee May 10 - Cannabis Policy Item Workshop #4: Policy Recommendations on Ownership, Land Use and Economic/Fiscal Issues in Cannabis File ID: 2022-00927 Date: Sunday, May 8, 2022 11:16:25 PM
Attachments: Sacramento City Council 5 8 2022.pdf
Dear Members of the Law and Legislation Committee,
Please see the attached comment regarding proposed changes in cannabis policy.
Sincerely,
Lynn
Lynn Silver, MD, MPH, FAAP
Senior Advisor
Public Health Institute
555 12th Street, 10th Floor
Oakland, CA 94607
[email protected]
+1 917-974-7065
Clinical Professor
University of California San Francisco
555 12th Street, 10th Floor • Oakland, CA 94607-4046 Phone: 510.285.5648 • Fax: 510.285.5501 gettingitrightfromthestart.org May 7, 2022 Dear Members of Sacramento City Council Law and Legislation Committee, On behalf of Getting it Right from the Start, a program of the Public Health Institute, a 501c3 that has worked to promote public health and health equity in California for over 55 years, and which has long been active in Sacramento City and County, I write to express our opposition to the permitting of cannabis consumption lounges, or temporary events in the City of Sacramento. We. also write to oppose the changes that will allow further corporitization of the cannabis industry. For decades, public health activists fought to protect people from the health risks associated with smoking and with second-hand smoke and to promote clean indoor air. We oppose the permitting of cannabis consumption lounges as such an action by the City Council would undermine this progress and would increase health risks for the infants of employees exposed while pregnant, and may increase heart attacks, heart disease, stroke, respiratory problems and cancer for employees and customers. Employees would be at particular risk as they would breathe in second-hand smoke throughout their shifts. California established many years ago, that employees have a right to a safe, smoke-free work environment, leading the nation in the protection of smoke-free air. This lead to one of the greatest advances in public health of the century, and contributed to large scale declines in heart disease. An entire generation of California youth has grown up in a smoke-free environment. That historic progress in smoke-free air, and in keeping restaurants and bars smoke-free is now threatened by proposals such as that under consideration, especially when combined with proposed state regulatory changes that would allow sale of food and beverages in on-site consumption lounges. Evidence suggests that cannabis smoke and/or vapor may be even more harmful than tobacco smoke. Researchers have compared the pollution levels (as fine particulate matter in the air) when a user smokes a Marlboro tobacco cigarette to the pollution levels that occur when the user smokes cannabis in a joint, bong, and pipe, as well as when they vaporize cannabis.i They found that all the methods of cannabis consumption produced as much or more pollution than the tobacco cigarette; cannabis joints were the most polluting, producing 3.5 times more particulate matter than the tobacco cigarette. In another study that compared cannabis and tobacco smoke, cannabis smoke was found to have 20 times higher levels of ammonia and 3-5 times more hydrogen cyanide, some aromatic amines, nitrogen dioxide and nitric oxide.ii Secondhand cannabis smoke and vapor pollutes the air as much or more than tobacco. UCSF researchers have also found that cannabis smoke affected cardiac endothelial cells even more dramatically than tobacco smoke – they concluded: ”One minute of exposure to marijuana SHS
[secondhand smoke] substantially impairs endothelial function in rats for at least 90 minutes, considerably longer than comparable impairment by tobacco SHS. Impairment of FMD [femoral artery flow-mediated dilation] does not require cannabinoids, nicotine, or rolling paper smoke. Our findings in rats suggest that SHS can exert similar adverse cardiovascular effects regardless of whether it is from tobacco or marijuana.”iii Given this clear evidence that marijuana secondhand marijuana smoke exposure is not benign, we cannot go backwards in time to once again expose workers. Nor should we allow temporary events that once again turn our parks, concerts and other currently smoke-free venues into places that expose our youth to smoke. On issues of ownership, we believe that full transparency of ownership remains essential, as already demonstrated in the case of undesirable figures such as Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman seeking involvement in the local cannabis industry. We believe that the existing provisions requiring a prolonged period for equity ownerships will keep equity businesses in the hands of community members rather than being bought up by outside investors. While these may indeed delay sale, it will also help to reduce the dangerous corporatization of the cannabis sector. Indeed, we would support licensing ONLY equity applicants in the future. Furthermore, the recommendations ignore evidence that increased density of cannabis dispensaries is associated with increased consumption in vulnerable groups and other negative effects. Emergency room visits from cannabis have increased by 53% in California just between 2016 and 2019. Visits for psychosis and delirium also increased 54%. Accidental ingestions calls to poison control grew eight-fold over a decade. Daily or near daily use by California adults has tripled over the past decade. Driving up cannabis consumption will result in significant costs in healthcare, motor vehicle accidents and public safety. While the report cited mentioned the absence of increased crime or changes in home values, those are not the only negative effects that need to be considered. As the number of stores and competitors increase, retailers naturally compete to stay profitable, increasing aggressiveness of marketing and discounting, which in turn increases youth and harmful use. These are not produce stands. They are businesses selling an addictive product that is a significant source of harm, including significant mental illness and suicidality, especially when used frequently or using high potency products. Our own research with Kaiser Permanente Northern California found that use by pregnant women was directly associated with the number of retailers within a 15 minute drive of the woman’s home, and major disparities were evident affecting black women and younger women.iv Cannabis businesses should remain out of residential areas and limited in number. We generally consider no more than one per 19,000 residents sufficient, and that is the average density in the over 70 California jurisdiction with caps on dispensaries. We also oppose lifting the cap on delivery businesses for the same reasons. We have made great progress in ending unjust mass incarceration for cannabis possession and in creating a system for legal access. That progress is to be celebrated. But cannabis, despite some valuable medical properties, is also a leading cause of substance abuse and generates significant negative health impacts and health disparities. The goal of City policy should be to
establish safer legal access without increasing consumption, social normalization, or exposing workers to harm. More is not better, and tax revenues will be offset by harms in mental health, youth development, and education that come at great human and financial cost to families, employers and government. Thank you for your consideration of our views on this important matter. Sincerely, Lynn Silver, MD, MPH, FAAP Director, Getting it Right from the Start Senior Advisor Public Health Institute 555 12th Street, 10th Floor Oakland, CA 94607 [email protected] +1 917-974-7065 Clinical Professor University of California San Francisco i Ott WR, Zhao T, Cheng KC, Wallace LA, & Hildemann LM. (2021). Measuring indoor fine particle concentrations, emission rates, and decay rates from cannabis use in a residence. Atmospheric Environment: X; Volume 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeaoa.2021.100106. ii Moir D, Rickert WS, Levasseur G, Larose Y, Maertens R, White P, & Desjardins S. A comparison of mainstream and sidestream marijuana and tobacco cigarette smoke produced under two machine smoking conditions. Chem Res Toxicol. 2008 Feb;21(2):494-502. doi: 10.1021/tx700275p iii Wang X, Derakhshandeh R, Liu J, Narayan S, Nabavizadeh P, Le S, Danforth OM, Pinnamaneni K, Rodriguez HJ, Luu E, Sievers RE, Schick SF, Glantz SA, Springer ML. One Minute of Marijuana Secondhand Smoke Exposure Substantially Impairs Vascular Endothelial Function. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Jul 27;5(8):e003858. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.003858. PMID: 27464788; PMCID: PMC5015303. iv Young-Wolff KC, Adams SR, Padon A, Silver LD, Alexeeff SE, Van Den Eeden SK, Avalos LA. Association of Cannabis Retailer Proximity and Density With Cannabis Use Among Pregnant Women in Northern California After Legalization of Cannabis for Recreational Use. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Mar 1;4(3):e210694. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.0694. PMID: 33662131; PMCID: PMC7933995.
From: Jim Keddy
To: Public Comment
Cc: Davina S. Smith; Adwoa Akyianu; Jay Schenirer; Allison Joe Subject: Public comment for Law and Legislation Meeting today, 5-10-2022 Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 9:50:33 AM
Attachments: letter to Law and Leg re cannabis lounges final 5-10-2022.docx Please include the attached letter as part of public comment for today's Law and Leg meeting regarding cannabis policy
Thank you
Jim
--
Jim Keddy
Youth Forward
916-248-1706
he/him/his
www.youth-forward.org
www.jimkeddyconsulting.com
May 9, 2022
Dear Members of Sacramento City Council Law and Legislation Committee,
We are writing to express our opposition to the permitting of cannabis consumption lounges in the City of Sacramento.
For decades, public health activists fought to protect people from the health risks associated with smoking and with second-hand smoke and to promote clean indoor air. We oppose the permitting of cannabis consumption lounges as such an action by the City Council would undermine this progress and would increase health risks for heart attacks, heart disease, stroke and cancer for employees and customers. Employees would be at particular risk as they would breathe in second-hand smoke throughout their shifts.
In addition to health risks for employees and customer, the permitting of cannabis consumption lounges would increase health risks for the unborn children of female employees and visitors.
Research shows that secondhand smoke increases risks for low birthweight and developmental delays.
i
It’s important to note that evidence suggests that cannabis smoke and/or vapor may be even more harmful than tobacco smoke. Researchers have compared the pollution levels (as fine particulate matter in the air) when a user smokes a Marlboro tobacco cigarette to the pollution levels that occur when the user smokes cannabis in a joint, bong, and pipe, as well as when they vaporize cannabis.ii They found that all the methods of cannabis consumption produced as much or more pollution than the tobacco cigarette; cannabis joints were the most polluting, producing 3.5 times more particulate matter than the tobacco cigarette. In another study that compared cannabis and tobacco smoke, cannabis smoke was found to have 20 times higher levels of ammonia and 3-5 times more hydrogen cyanide, some aromatic amines, nitrogen dioxide and nitric oxide.iii Secondhand cannabis smoke and vapor pollutes the air as much or more than tobacco.
Thank you for your consideration of our views on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Jim Keddy Lindsay Freitas-Norman
Executive Director Director, California and Hawaii
Youth Forward Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
Cynthia Hallett, MPH Staci Anderson
President and CEO President and CEO
Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights PRO Youth and Families
i https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/health-effects/pregnancy
ii Ott WR, Zhao T, Cheng KC, Wallace LA, & Hildemann LM. (2021). Measuring indoor fine particle concentrations, emission rates, and decay rates from cannabis use in a residence. Atmospheric Environment: X; Volume 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeaoa.2021.100106.
iii Moir D, Rickert WS, Levasseur G, Larose Y, Maertens R, White P, & Desjardins S. A comparison of mainstream and sidestream marijuana and tobacco cigarette smoke produced under two machine smoking conditions. Chem Res Toxicol. 2008 Feb;21(2):494-502. doi: 10.1021/tx700275p
From: Adwoa Akyianu
To: Public Comment
Subject: Law & Legislative Committee Meeting May 10, 11am Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 9:57:57 AM
Attachments: letter to Law and Leg re cannabis lounges final 5-10-2022.docx Hello,
Attached is a letter written to the Law & Legislative Committee for today's (May 10) meeting.
In solidarity,
Adwoa Akyianu
She/Hers
Policy Advocate
Youth Forward
http://www.youth-forward.org/
May 9, 2022
Dear Members of Sacramento City Council Law and Legislation Committee,
We are writing to express our opposition to the permitting of cannabis consumption lounges in the City of Sacramento.
For decades, public health activists fought to protect people from the health risks associated with smoking and with second-hand smoke and to promote clean indoor air. We oppose the permitting of cannabis consumption lounges as such an action by the City Council would undermine this progress and would increase health risks for heart attacks, heart disease, stroke and cancer for employees and customers. Employees would be at particular risk as they would breathe in second-hand smoke throughout their shifts.
In addition to health risks for employees and customer, the permitting of cannabis consumption lounges would increase health risks for the unborn children of female employees and visitors.
Research shows that secondhand smoke increases risks for low birthweight and developmental delays.
i
It’s important to note that evidence suggests that cannabis smoke and/or vapor may be even more harmful than tobacco smoke. Researchers have compared the pollution levels (as fine particulate matter in the air) when a user smokes a Marlboro tobacco cigarette to the pollution levels that occur when the user smokes cannabis in a joint, bong, and pipe, as well as when they vaporize cannabis.ii They found that all the methods of cannabis consumption produced as much or more pollution than the tobacco cigarette; cannabis joints were the most polluting, producing 3.5 times more particulate matter than the tobacco cigarette. In another study that compared cannabis and tobacco smoke, cannabis smoke was found to have 20 times higher levels of ammonia and 3-5 times more hydrogen cyanide, some aromatic amines, nitrogen dioxide and nitric oxide.iii Secondhand cannabis smoke and vapor pollutes the air as much or more than tobacco.
Thank you for your consideration of our views on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Jim Keddy Lindsay Freitas-Norman
Executive Director Director, California and Hawaii
Youth Forward Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
Cynthia Hallett, MPH Staci Anderson
President and CEO President and CEO
Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights PRO Youth and Families
i https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/health-effects/pregnancy
ii Ott WR, Zhao T, Cheng KC, Wallace LA, & Hildemann LM. (2021). Measuring indoor fine particle concentrations, emission rates, and decay rates from cannabis use in a residence. Atmospheric Environment: X; Volume 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeaoa.2021.100106.
iii Moir D, Rickert WS, Levasseur G, Larose Y, Maertens R, White P, & Desjardins S. A comparison of mainstream and sidestream marijuana and tobacco cigarette smoke produced under two machine smoking conditions. Chem Res Toxicol. 2008 Feb;21(2):494-502. doi: 10.1021/tx700275p