Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, May 14, 2024 (part 4 of 5)

As constitutional law expert and civil rights attorney Allen Hopper highlighted in his WAMM support letter before this body, it is bitterly ironic that appellants hang their public health and safety arguments upon the City of Santa Cruz cannabis ordinance modeled on an early County cannabis ordinance, specifically crafted to protect WAMM - while retaining for government the discretion to deny permits for applicants lacking WAMM’s demonstrated history of selflessly providing crucial public health benefits to vulnerable members of the community. 2 The Appeal presents infirm facts and misconstructions of law and is designed to lead this City Council to a result that flouts existing law, will gravely erode confidence in this governing body, and, in the end, will not satisfy the appellant's core concern: abate teen access to legal cannabis.

Since WAMM is a state-licensed cannabis operator engaged in the business of retailing state-licensed cannabis products through the state-mandated and controlled “track and trace” system, teen access to illicit cannabis goods is irrelevant to the City Council’s determination today.

Finding 2 & 4 of the Commercial Cannabis Ordinance (24.12.1350) Appellants argue that Finding 2 of the Commercial Cannabis Ordinance (24.12.1350) of the Santa Cruz County Code (“Code”) concerning adverse effects on the health, safety, and welfare of the community cannot be met. The assertion is not supported by facts or law.

A. Proximity; 600 ft Set Back
Proximity is stated as a general concept in the Code while the 600 foot set-back is a specific provision (See 12.12.1320). The appellant's proposition that general concepts of proximity should prevail over specific provisions of law is deeply flawed as a matter of law.

It is a fundamental legal principle of statutory interpretation that a specific provision relating to a particular subject will prevail over a general provision even where the general statute is broad enough to encompass the subject of the particular legislation. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3534, Cal.

Gov’t Code Sec. § 53080 and RRLH, Inc. v. Saddleback Valley Unified Sch. Dist. (1990) 222 Cal.

App. 3d, 1602.

The appellants argument is equally flawed, as a matter of fact. The legislative history of Ordinance 2000-12 specifically evaluated the very issues presented today. In light of the City of 2 See attached hereto as Exhibit B is Support Letter from Allen Hopper, Esq.

City Counsel Letter
May 10, 2024

Page 3 of 8 ends

San Jose having at that time a 500-foot setback from schools and the County having a 1,000-foot setback from schools, this body determined:

Because our City is very limited in land area and available affordable commercial space, and because we are proposing stringent operating procedures for the use, staff feels that the 600 foot distance requirement between the dispensary and schools, day care facilities, and other sensitive uses, was adequate to mitigate potential impacts while providing sufficient choice in securing sites for the dispensaries [...]. The 600-foot distance requirement was taken from the example of the existing distance requirement for high-risk alcohol outlets, pursuant to Section 24.12.1102 of the Zoning Ordinance. We thought it wise to be consistent with that requirement.
3 (emphasis added)
Furthermore, the relevant legislative history very meticulously evaluated exceptions to the 600-foot setback in the context of reduced setbacks from 600-feet, not the increased setbacks as appellants advocate here:

The section, however, does give the Zoning Board the option to relax these distance requirements, except for schools, if the Applicant can demonstrate that the proposed location for the dispensary would not harm or inconvenience any of those identified uses and the siting of the dispensary at that location would provide a positive benefit to the public health, safety and welfare.

The facts here are that the AUP project site is located approximately 850 feet from Santa Cruz High School, which is 142% greater than the minimum required distance from schools pursuant to 12.12.1320. WAMM’s site location not only meets but exceeds the existing legal mandates.

Finally, appellants stack forward data concerning youth cannabis access that is alarming but then ask the Council to accept a conclusion of conjecture - that adolescents being witness to highly secure legal cannabis dispensaries will increase their use of legal cannabis. This data is contracted by two separate April 2024 research letters from the American Medical Association.4 4 The cited letter concludes: “After Legalization, there was no evidence of an increase in [cannabis] use” nor did the opinion of [cannabis] retail stores seem to impact youth use. Recreational Marijuana Laws and Teen Marijuana Use, 1993-2021 JAMA Psychiatry. Published online April 24, 2024 Recreational Cannabis Legalization, Retail Sales, and Adolescent Substance Use Through 2021 JAMA Pediatr. Published online April 15, 2024.
3 See Santa Cruz City Council Agenda Report, Dated May 21, 2000 re Medical Marijuana Provider Association Production and Dispensing.

City Counsel Letter
May 10, 2024

Page 4 of 8 ends

With all due respect to the appellants and their constituency, when WAMM asked whether the school representatives knew how to distinguish between legal and illicit cannabis or hemp products, they fumbled. They keep no records of the origin of confiscated cannabis goods and frankly were so fixated on their myopic perspective that they rebuffed WAMM’s offer of assistance to help address the true culprit that the entire California cannabis regulatory structure is designed to thwart: the proliferation of illicit cannabis & hemp goods.

Less than 30 days ago, Governor Gavin Newsome directed the California Department of Public Health to address this very issue, stating:

Mislabeled and misleading products do not belong in the marketplace- especially when they put our kid’s health and safety at risk. Today, the state is taking action to protect Californians, especially our kids, as we work to further close loopholes and increase enforcement to prevent children from accessing hemp and cannabis products. - Governor Gavin Newsom, April 26, 2024.

The Governor’s focus on mislabelled and misleading cannabis and hemp goods is the clear problem to be addressed, not the proximity to legal retail outlets. Adolescent exposure to WAMM’s legal cannabis dispensary cannot be said to promote youth use of illicit cannabis; rather, it responsibly teaches by example that there is a difference. The blurred distinction between legal and illicit is a core California state-wide challenge.

B. Compatibility
Appellants argue that Finding 4 of the Commercial Cannabis Ordinance (24.12.1350) cannot be met, alleging the AUP situs is not a compatible use, particularly because people under the age of 18 use the AUP situs as a main path of travel to school and WAMM’S presence will not just encourage teen access, but permit access.

Again, appellants position is simply wrong on the core pertinent facts, which are as follows:

Appellants cannot support with evidence the assertion that the Mission Street & Laurel Street crossing is a main crossing used by students. At no point during commute times to and from school or lunch times is the location frequented or utilized for student and pedestrian foot traffic.5
5 See attached hereto as Exhibit C is Verkata Pedestrian Traffic Data for pertinent periods City Counsel Letter
May 10, 2024

Page 5 of 8 ends

Appellants cannot support with evidence the assertion WAMM will serve students. In fact, WAMM has voluntarily agreed to increase its medical access age from 18 to 19. The applicants' operations plan (and operational history) allows no permitted access or sales to minors.6
Appellants cannot cite a single incident of unauthorized sales to minors at any dispensary in the County or City. (This fact was confirmed at the Planning Commission hearing by Lt. Carter Jones of the Santa Cruz City Police Department and confirmed in separate writing to WAMM by the Santa Cruz County Cannabis Licensing Office.

Appellants cannot support with evidence the assertion legal cannabis dispensary advertising promotes adolescent use of illegal cannabis and hemp products. While appellants posture an argument that WAMM’s proximity would normalize cannabis, the fact is it may well normalize legal cannabis, a well-regarded California state goal, but there is no evidence that the presence of a legal cannabis shop promotes adolescent consumption of illegal cannabis goods.

Appellants cannot support with evidence the assertion that WAMM intends to operationalize a retail cafe at the AUP location, let alone one designed to attract youth.

Finding 1 of the Administrative Use Permit (25.08.050)
Appellants next argue that Finding 1 of the Administrative Use Ordinance (24.12.1350) cannot be met, asserting the proposed AUP conflicts with enumerated tenets of the general plan. Again, the appellants are simply wrong on the facts.

WAMM’S long history and legacy of public service clearly undercuts each appellants bald positions, as follows:

A. CC 7.4 Enhance programs designed to reinforce positive juvenile behavior and prevent delinquency.

There is no quibbling over the question of whether cannabis has a deleterious effect on youth development. In fact, California’s entire cannabis regulatory structure is expressly contemplated, designed and regulated in large part to prevent youth access. Thus, the proper inquiry is what WAMM does to foster that goal.
6 See CP23-0106 submitted Operations Plan on file with the City.

City Counsel Letter
May 10, 2024

Page 6 of 8 ends

As already admitted by staff, presented and discussed at the Planning Commission and evidenced by the record, WAMM is a recognized leader in not just following but promoting strict adherence to youth diversion strategies. (Not in small part, a core reason there is no incidence of cannabis diversion from a legal operator in the County or City is that the issue receives profoundly significant regulatory attention already.) WAMM’s culture of strict adherence to these regulatory structures is for the purpose of avoiding youth diversion, which directly reinforces positive juvenile behavior.

WAMM does not just follow the law, WAMM also leads in avoiding youth diversion. For example, it offers its patrons (i) secure lock boxes for home and (ii) has deployed in its own shops a “Talk it up, Lock it up” messaging campaign with its patrons to ensure they educate minors and ensure against youth diversion in the home. WAMM also promotes an active website dedicated to educating parents, whether patrons or not, and arming them with additional tools to assist in taking action against cannabis youth diversion (See www.safecannabis.net).

WAMM’S specific dedication to this critical issue clearly meets CC 7.4 criteria.

B. CC 7.4.3 Work with Santa Cruz City Schools and Private Schools to provide drug prevention
Again, WAMM does not just follow the law, WAMM also leads in avoiding youth diversion with its“Talk it up, Lock it up” messaging campaign with patrons to ensure against youth diversion at home. Furthermore, WAMM also promotes an active website to assist parents, whether patrons or not, in taking action against cannabis youth diversion. While these programs are not targeted at Santa Cruz City Schools or Private Schools, they are targeted towards the parents of their students.

Furthermore, on its own initiative, WAMM increased the age of medical only patients permitted access to the AUP site to assist the schools in addressing their drug prevention goals.

Much like WAMM’s effort to assist the school in developing a program to eradicate cannabis and hemp vape products from its campus, WAMM’s medical access change was largely ignored.

It is quite rich for appellants, Santa Cruz City Schools leadership to assert WAMM fails to meet general plan criteria when its good faith efforts to engage with Santa Cruz City Schools to meet the specific goal of CC7.4.3 was rebuffed with due prejudice. Notwithstanding the past, if WAMM had the opportunity to work directly with Santa Cruz County School on the crisis issue presented, it would be a strident and willing partner.

City Counsel Letter
May 10, 2024

Page 7 of 8 ends

C. CC 8.4.1 Implement The Safe Routes To School Program where funded It is unclear what appellants intend to convey by referencing CC8.4.1 other than perhaps to assert that student walking and bicycle routes on Mission or Laurel past the AUP site are inherently unsafe. For example, the Bay View Elementary Safe Route indicates that the dangerous hazard being avoided in that case is cycling on Mission Street.

Again, WAMM refutes the bald assertion presented without any evidence that youth walking or cycling down Mission or Laurel and passing a closed-door fully compliant legal cannabis dispensary that prevents access somehow presents an inherent danger to the community.

There are legal cannabis dispensaries of equal or more proximate distance to other schools or youth congregation points, such as Bay View Elementary School, Ice Cream on Fair, or Marianne’s famous ice cream parlor, that present the same challenges. Yet, appellants are silent about those locations as points of reference or anecdotal facts supporting the validity of their “passerby” concerns. The silence reveals the vapor of appellants well-intentioned but perhaps frightened and uneducated pearl-clutching.

D. CC 8.3.4 Work with appropriate agencies to develop aggressive prevention and early intervention efforts toward reducing education failure and other problems for children and youth.

Again, it is unclear why appellants assert these criteria of the general plan is relevant. As stated above, WAMM leads in avoiding youth diversion with its “Talk it up, Lock it up” messaging campaign to ensure against youth diversion at home. It also promotes an active website to assist parents in taking action against cannabis youth diversion. While those efforts are not directly working with City agencies, they are most certainly designed as early intervention efforts to reduce education failure and youth cannabis access risks.

Finally, WAMM has proven itself in the past as a worthy City ally in promoting community-safe cannabis policy. There is simply no sound basis to assert that WAMM would refuse or fail to work with City agencies to continue promoting this policy.

Questionable Compliance with Proper Zoning per 24.12.1320(5) With a circularity of argument that is difficult to follow, Appellants appear to argue that the recent change in zoning of the AUP site from CC to MU-M takes the AUP site out of an City Counsel Letter
May 10, 2024

Page 8 of 8 ends

approved cannabis zone. WAMM has, in the entirety of the license transfer and AUP, followed the guidance and directives of City Planning and Staff. Given the paucity of approved locations within the City map for cannabis retail, WAMM has no reason to believe City Planning or Staff failed to study the issue appellants present to defendable satisfaction with the result.

Conclusion
The City School Board (and appellants) first presented their concern about the AUP situs as one of purely youth access. Once the access argument was soundly refuted, the concern morphed into concern that 18-year-old medical access was bringing cannabis into the schools7 . Once WAMM
increased the medical access age to 19, the concern morphed to its present position - that students viewing a highly secured legal cannabis dispensary will promote youth access to illicit cannabis. When WAMM tried to directly engage the City School Board to work together on joint messaging to address their concerns, its offer was soundly declined.

We have expressed concern about bias. In review of the appeal to the Planning Commission's determination after the hearing, this body assumes a quasi-judicial role that demands fairness and impartiality that is free from actual bias on the part of those with the actual decision-making power. U.S. v. State of Or. (9th Cir. 1994) 44 F.3d 758, 772. While a mere suggestion of bias is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of integrity and honesty, evidence of active advocacy for or against a party to this appeal is a manifest violation of the City Council’s quasi-judicial role. BreakZone Billiards v. City of Torrance (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1236.

We encourage the City Council to weigh the evidence, ignore inflamed conjecture, balance the equities of the entire community, and support the decision made by the Planning Commission after a full and fair hearing. We are confident this will not only lead to a fair result but one that braces the public trust in government.

We thank you,
WAMM members,
Bryce Berryessa,
and on behalf of: Kyle Giorchino and Valerie Corral
7 While appellants baldly assert 18 year old medical access is responsible for the cannabis use among school youth, it admits it conducted no due diligence to confirm the point and refused WAMM’S effort to help administration understand the difference between illicit and legal cannabis goods.

EXHIBIT A
May 8, 2024
The proposed dispensary at Mission and Laurel Streets, formerly Emily’s Bakery, faces a pivotal vote by the Santa Cruz City Council. This moment represents an opportunity for authentic community dialogue, where concerns about children’s safety and drug misuse can be directly addressed.

By relying on evidence over fear, we can foster trust and ensure wellinformed decision-making.

I've known and worked with Valerie Corral, co-founder of the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), for decades through initiatives like the United Way’s Compassionate Use Initiative and Santa Cruz County's Community Prevention Partners. She is a nationally recognized leader in medical marijuana advocacy, pioneering the path for effective policy. For 33 years, WAMM has set a benchmark in compassionate care, delivering essential services at low or no cost. Should we lose these services, there’s no other organization to fill this void. As a result, low-income patients battling cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and other serious conditions would lose vital support.

A decision against the dispensary risks stripping our most vulnerable neighbors of critical support, leaving them to fight devastating illnesses alone. Let's not abandon those who need us most. Choose facts, choose compassion, choose WAMM.

Gail Pellerin
Assemblymember, District 28
The following individuals support Assemblymember Gail Pellerin’s letter:

State Senator John Laird, former State Assemblymember; former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor
Mark Stone, former State Assemblymember; former Santa Cruz County Supervisor John Leopold, former Santa Cruz County Supervisor
Jim Hart, Sheriff of Santa Cruz County
Gail Michaelis-Ow
Les and Nancy Gardner
Dana McRae, retired Santa Cruz County Counsel
John Leopold, former Santa Cruz County Supervisor
Don Lane, former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor Michael Rotkin, former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor Emily Reilly, former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor Andrew Goldenkranz, Public Educator; Chair of Santa Cruz County Democratic Central Committee (for identification purposes only)
Jenni Veitch-Olson, Watsonville Planning Commissioner; Vice-chair of Santa Cruz County Democratic Central Committee (for identification purposes only) Rudy Escalante, retired Capitola Chief of Police
Gary Patton, Environmental Attorney and former Santa Cruz County Supervisor Dr. Arnold Leff, former County Public Health Officer
Craig Reinarman, UCSC Professor of Sociology and Legal Studies Emeritus Dick Wasserstrom, UCLA Professor of Law; UCSC Professor of Philosophy Emeritus Dan Haifley, American Environmentalist; Newspaper Columnist Dr. Michelle Massie and Dana Massie
Miriam Stombler, retired Assistant County Counsel
Peggy Flynn, Nonprofit Consultant
Alan Heit, DDS
Larry Bernstein, founder of Cypress Health Institute
Scott Roseman
Ian Rice, co-founder of Santa Cruz Laboratories; founder and CEO of Envirocann Phil Engfer, co-founder of Strong Agronomy
Pat Malo, Manager of Envirocann
Richard Deutsch, Sculptor
Drew Pieros, retired local Business Owner; Musician
Liz Fowler, Educator; local Business Owner
Tammi Brown, “Artist of the Year” in 2024 by the Arts Commission of Santa Cruz County Tamyra Rice, retired Assistant County Counsel
Ben Rice, retired Criminal Defense Attorney; former attorney for WAMM John Leopold
3435 Gross Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95062 | 831-566-0122 | john@friendsofjohnleopold RE: Support for WAMM Phytotherapies and The Hook Dispensary at 1129 Mission St.

To City Planning Commission and City Council
I am writing in support of The Hook Outlet’s and WAMM Phytotherapies (WAMM) proposed dispensary at 1129 Mission St. I have worked with the principals at the Hook and with WAMM for many years and I can attest to their commitment and care for our community.

While serving as the Executive Director of the Santa Cruz AIDS Project, I first worked with WAMM in 1991. They were helping out people living with HIV/AIDS at a time where there was not a lot of community support. They helped ease the pain and provided support for individuals, some of whom had been shunned by family and friends. Over the years I have seen their services and witnessed their commitment to helping people at some of the most difficult moments in their lives. I worked directly with them in setting County policy over medicinal cannabis and cultivation regulations. For many years they have eschewed profit-making in the world of cannabis and continue to be the gold standard for helping people with medicinal cannabis.

In my role as a County Supervisor, I worked with Bryce Berryesa in creating both policies and tax plans that have served our community well. His businesses are sited in the district that I represented and I never received complaints from others about his operations. I have found that Bryce is rooted firmly in our community – raising his family here, operating business and engaged in the arts community. He has been a good partner who sees the big picture of needs.

The City has developed a solid set of regulations that provide clear boundaries about where retail cannabis establishments can be sited. Dispensaries have strict age guidelines and have a greater level of security than alcohol or tobacco retail stores, which are closer than the proposed cannabis operation. The operators are well known to our community and invested in being part of the community.

The concerns that parents have for their children are real but are balanced by a sound set of zoning requirements and a high level of security at the proposed location. I urge you not to change your wellbalanced regulations out of fear. The City has adopted evidence-based policies, and I want to encourage you to look at the evidence here of committed operators, strong policies and security greater than any other retail establishment in the city.

I recommend that you approve the application for the WAMM/Hook store.

Sincerely,

From: Ben Rice [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: I urge you to support WAMM's application for a dispensary on Mission Street on the former site of Emily's Bakery Date: April 29, 2024 at 9:28PM
To: Bryce Berryessa [email protected], Valerie Leveroni Corral [email protected] Another former mayor!
Sent from Gmail Mobile
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Rotkin <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 10:54AM
Subject: I urge you to support WAMM's application for a dispensary on Mission Street on the former site of Emily's Bakery To: <[email protected]>, Renee Golder <[email protected]>, Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <skalantari[email protected]>, Martine Watkins <[email protected]>, Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>, Sandy Brown <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> CC: Bernie Escalante <[email protected]>
Dear Mayor and City Council Friends,
I urge you to support WAMM's application for a dispensary on Mission Street on the former site of Emily's Bakery. For over three decades now, the Woman’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana has demonstrated that they are not involved with marijuana for recreational or financial gain reasons. The vast majority of their clients are people with medical issues that medical marijuana helps address. They have been more than responsible when it comes to their focus.

When others were focused on recreational issues and profit, before marijuana became legal in California, WAMM was working to make marijuana available to people who needed it for medical reasons. They are not now going to run a dispensary that is irresponsible with respect to letting under-age youth have access to marijuana. There is no evidence that any of the dispensaries in our community are sloppy about allowing under-age youth access to marijuana, but of all of them, certainly WAMM will be the last place to let that happen.

On a more practical level, few students from Mission Hill Junior High and Santa Cruz High School primarily access their schools by passing close to the site proposed for the dispensary. The City Council set up rules about distance of such facilities from schools and I see no reason to demand additional distancing for this dispensary. The City also requires a whole host of other mechanisms to insure that marijuana dispensaries do not become nuisances to surrounding residents and businesses. I am more than a little positive that WAMM will go overboard in its operational compliance with all of the City’s regulations.

No doubt, at the meeting you hold on this issue you will be visited by many of the clients of WAMM. They are primarily disabled in one way or another, and you will witness who, exactly, it is that you would be harming if you turn down WAMM’s application for a dispensary on the site in question. That WAMM plans to combine their operation with a for-profit recreational dispensary is a necessity for financial success of the operation. Valarie Coral, who should be seen as a national hero, will not compromise her integrity to allow this operation to target youth in its advertising, displays visible outside of the business, or, of course, in determining who has access to their products. It is clear that they will use the profit making part of the business to help subsidize the cost of marijuana for those unable to pay for medicine that they need.

It is understandable that you will also get visited by parents concerned that any marijuana dispensary might draw their children into drug addiction. I don’t blame them for their heightened concerns — it is not easy to raise kids in the middle of a drug abuse pandemic that is sweeping our nation. But that does not justify irrational attempts to focus on the location of this dispensary. Other factors are much more likely to impact the relationship that their children have to marijuana, serious hard drugs, and alcohol.

Thanks for your consideration of my comments on this matter, Sincerely,
mike
Mike Rotkin
From: Emily Reilly [email protected]
Subject: support of proposed use 1129 Mission Street
Date: March 1, 2024 at 12:57PM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Dear Planning Commission and City Staff,
Thank you for your ongoing work.

I wholeheartedly support The Hook Outlet’s request to open their business at 1129 Mission St.

I rented that space for over 40 years and learned about The Hook’s business practices and relationships during the transition process.

I was impressed with Bryce and Kyle, with their consistent responsible behavior and pleased to witness their serious attention to our local ordinances and processes.

It was great to work with people who had done their due diligence, who knew the rules and were ready to commit their time, money and energy to their project and our community.

They were also sensitive to my needs and open and communicative with our landlord as well.

I was encouraged to learn of their relationship with Valerie Corral, whom I have known and worked with in various endeavors over the past 30 years, and trust without reservation.

I have every confidence that Bryce and Kyle and Valerie, and those with whom they work, will continue to contribute to our community and that their presence at 1129 Mission St. will be a positive addition to my Westside neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Emily Reilly
219 California Street
818-6490, call or text anytime

BECOME A MEMBER

OPINION FROM COMMUNITY VOICES
Laird: It’s a ‘simple act of fairness’ to approve cannabis dispensary at former Emily’s Bakery site

BY JOHN LAIRD
May 3, 2024
Privacy - Terms
The site of the proposed dispensary at Mission and Laurel streets; state Sen. John Laird (inset). Credit: Kevin Painchaud / Lookout Santa Cruz
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers.

Guidelines here.

I’ve been involved in the Santa Cruz community since I arrived as a student at UCSC in 1968, and I realize it gives me a historical perspective that those who have come of age since are not aware of.

It has been almost two generations since the dawn of the AIDS crisis gripped our country and our county, and it is hard to believe that even in the Santa Cruz community it was a very difficult road until the drug cocktail became available that limited the effects of HIV.

Lost to time has been the stigma associated with HIV then. In those early years of the AIDS Project, a woman was fired from her job in Santa Cruz for volunteering with a person with HIV. As a city councilmember at the time, I authored an ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of HIV, so that things like that would not happen again.

In the 10-year period beginning in 1985, roughly 240 Santa Cruz County residents died from HIV. In the mid1980s, six of us formed the Santa Cruz AIDS Project (SCAP), a nonprofit community mobilization to provide education and client services. I was executive director in the 1990s, and at one time during that period, we had 225 clients and 600 regular volunteers. We faced many challenges then. For example, it was almost impossible to find local dental services with people with HIV. Our dental program was transportation vouchers to San Francisco, where such care could be found.

Quick Take
Despite school officials’ opposition, state Sen. John Laird supports the creation of a cannabis dispensary at the former Emily’s Bakery in Santa Cruz. In a Community Voices opinion piece, he outlines his reasoning and his historical connection to some of the partners in the project.

Most of those who died in that period were our clients. Counted among them were many of my friends. But in a community as small as ours, almost no one was not touched by the epidemic. Among those lost were wellknown community members – a letter carrier, local physician, business owner, teacher and many more.

There were many individuals – among them medical personnel, mental health therapists, massage therapists, friends and family – who volunteered to help in some way. I will always remember and be grateful for those individuals and organizations who took the risk to step up in those difficult times.

The disease ravaged those with HIV. A majority considered being diagnosed a death sentence. In the final weeks and months, it was a painful experience. One of the few things that helped with symptoms was cannabis – which, at the time, was not even legal for medicinal purposes. It was a risk to grow and provide cannabis for those it truly helped. It was an incredible act of legal bravery and personal compassion.

One organization in particular stepped up – Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana, known as WAMM. Val Corral, together with her then-husband, Michael, were at the core of the organization. She was in a major automobile accident earlier in her life, which led them to this issue due to her own medicinal needs. They were arrested in this period for their actions.

Why do I write about this today?
WAMM is a partner in an application for a cannabis dispensary in the former Emily’s Bakery in Santa Cruz. The company invested its savings in bringing the property up to speed for this use, and met all the city requirements and made it through the permit process. The application was appealed to the planning commission, which voted 5-2 to approve the application. It will now be in front of the Santa Cruz City Council on May 14.

I am loath to express an opinion on any local planning matter, particularly since I deal with my share of controversies at the state level. But I have always had a special place in my heart for those who stood up in a challenging time, when many did not.
— STATE SEN. JOHN LAIRD
“
© 2024 Lookout Santa Cruz. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Newspack
It is a simple act of fairness to approve this application, since the owners invested their savings, played by the existing rules, and would quite likely go broke as individuals and an organization if it is not approved.

I am loath to express an opinion on any local planning matter, particularly since I deal with my share of controversies at the state level. But I have always had a special place in my heart for those who stood up in a challenging time, when many did not. I could not live with myself if I remained silent about their history and the fairness in this matter.

FROM APRIL
It is the local school district that has pushed to not approve this application. I sympathize with some concerns.

Last year I authored legislation to require a pamphlet on cannabis to be distributed to first-time buyers, and a second bill to allow for easier access to illegal grows for the state water board, now that there is a legal process for cannabis. With former Assemblymember Mark Stone, I previously authored a successful bill to set up common testing standards for laboratories that test cannabis before its sale. When voters approved the initiative for legalization, it is now up to us to make the system work.

WAMM’s application has adhered to the current city rules, and most of the fears about this location apply to other locations that pre-exist in Santa Cruz.

I hope that the history of WAMM will count for something in the process. They stood up for people in need when not many others were standing up for them. I hope that people stand up for them now.

John Laird is the state senator for District 17.

Keeley’s cannabis pause falls flat with Santa Cruz City Council, business community

EXHIBIT B
1 Allen Hopper, Attorney at Law
3975 Manzanita Drive
San Jose, CA 95117
May 8, 2024
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center St, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
I write in support of the cannabis dispensary at the site of the former Emily’s Bakery on Mission and Laurel Streets, proposed in partnership with Valerie Corral and the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM). I intend to offer public comments at the Council’s upcoming public meeting on May 14 and respectfully request that this letter be entered into the public record as additional written testimony/comments and distributed to the Councilmembers.

Thank you for the opportunity to set forth in more detail than will be possible in my public comments at the Council Meeting my background and history with WAMM and as a cannabis law and regulatory expert, followed by specific reasons why the Council should uphold the ruling of the Planning Commission and grant the requested permit.

My Background, Expertise and History with WAMM
Though I now live in San Jose for family reasons, I have lived on and off in Santa Cruz since 2004 and still consider myself a Santa Cruzan at heart. I am an attorney and first moved to Santa Cruz to join the staff of the American Civil Liberties Union as the Litigation Director for the National ACLU’s Drug Law Reform Project, which for a time was headquartered in Santa Cruz.

It was through my work for the ACLU that I first met Valarie Corral and became aware of WAMM. Along with nationally renowned trial lawyer and law professor Gerald Uelmen, the law firm of Bingham McCutchin, local attorney Ben Rice and others, the ACLU assisted with litigation in federal court arising from the infamous 2002 D.E.A. raid of the WAMM garden in which federal agents in combat gear literally held wheelchair-bound patients at gunpoint. In addition to representing WAMM and its patient members in that litigation, I joined Ben Rice and then-City Attorney John Barisone as co-counsel representing the City of Santa Cruz after the City and Santa Cruz County joined the lawsuit as co-plaintiffs.

The City’s strong support of WAMM before and after that litigation is well-documented.

Perhaps fittingly, the Mayor at that time was Emily Reilly, owner of the former bakery at the site of the proposed dispensary now under consideration by the Council. Mayor Reilly and other City officials allowed WAMM to distribute cannabis to patient members from the steps of City Hall shortly after the D.E.A. raid, with many other then-current and past local government officials also in attendance, looking on approvingly. The City’s and County’s support of WAMM in that litigation was crucial and, in fact, an important legal argument upon which we prevailed in 2 federal court was based on the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects state and local governments from improper federal government interference and control. The WAMM litigation against the D.E.A. not only carved out unique protections for WAMM allowing its continued operation despite federal illegality, but moreover was an important step in the evolution of the legal framework that today shapes the national cannabis regulatory landscape. I share this history now because it illustrates the important role WAMM has played not only here in Santa Cruz but nationally.

In the time since that federal litigation, I have further developed expertise in constitutional and local cannabis regulatory matters. I testified as a constitutional law expert at then-State Assembly Member Tom Ammiano’s groundbreaking Public Safety Committee hearings on cannabis legalization in 2009. I co-authored an article published in 2015 in the UCLA Law Review with well-known constitutional scholar and Dean of Berkeley Law School, Erwin Chemerinsky on the topic of federalism and state legalization of cannabis despite continued federal illegality. I was deeply involved in convening the ACLU’s 2015 statewide Blue Ribbon Commission chaired by then-Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom and was part of the six-attorney drafting team for Proposition 64, the 2016 California ballot initiative legalizing adult use cannabis. I have assisted local governments in cannabis regulatory matters, including helping the City of Santa Rosa craft its local cannabis ordinances and representing Pueblo, Colorado in federal litigation defending its local cannabis regulations. I also met with former County Counsel Dana McRea to provide input and legal consultation while the County was drafting early iterations of the County’s cannabis ordinances. The County’s support for WAMM led directly to provisions I drafted as part of Prop. 64 to create a pilot project for a non-profit state licensing pathway specifically designed with WAMM in mind.

The Discretion Afforded by Section 24.12.1300.4.B is Patterned After Early Versions of the County’s Cannabis Ordinance Intended to Protect WAMM.

The early versions of the County cannabis ordinances included provisions to “grandfather” in WAMM to allow it to continue to operate even if unable to meet all of the criteria established under the new ordinance. This was in recognition of the important service WAMM had long been providing to some of Santa Cruz’s most vulnerable—sick and dying patients using cannabis to ease their suffering.

In light of this history, it is sadly ironic that those opposing WAMM’s new dispensary are relying upon a provision of City of Santa Cruz Ordinance 2000-12, Section 24.12.1300.4.B, that appears to be patterned after language in the County’s early versions of its cannabis ordinances that was specifically crafted to protect WAMM by carving out a “grandfathered” status for WAMM while still giving the County broad discretion deny permits for other operations lacking WAMM’s demonstrated history of providing crucial public health benefits to vulnerable County patients.

Section 24.12.1300.4.B imposes a requirement that the hearing body find that “The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of area residents or businesses, or uses … and will not be located within proximity of an incompatible use, such as a children’s school, day care facility or children’s play area.”
3 Very similar language requiring that a proposed operation would not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of area residents was included in early versions of the County’s ordinance to ensure that other less scrupulous operators without WAMM’s long history of working closely with local government officials to serve sick and dying patients could not impermissibly shoehorn themselves into the WAMM “grandfather” carve-out. It is outrageous that this Council is now being asked to use that very language to exclude WAMM, especially given that denial of this permit would very likely be an extinction event for WAMM.

The Opponents’ Suggested Interpretation of 24.12.1300.4.B Improperly Grants Unfettered Discretion to the City; That Section Must be Read in Conjunction with the City’s Other Cannabis Permitting Rules.

To avoid vulnerability to litigation and potential City liability, City Ordinance Section

24.12.1300.4.B must be read in conjunction with the City’s other cannabis permitting rules and in a manner such that it does not grant the hearing body unfettered discretion to deny a permit where all of the City’s specific requirements are met. The only sensible interpretation here is that

24.12.1300.4.B is meant to allow denial of a permit based on health and safety concerns not otherwise addressed by the cannabis ordinance or other land use ordinances. Here, the only health and safety concern of the opponents appears to be “proximity” to the high school, but proximity to a school is specifically addressed by the 600’ setback requirement imposed by the City’s ordinance and state law. Indeed, Section 24.12.1300.2.D explicitly allows the City Council discretion to grant a permit even where the site is too close to a school and the applicant therefore cannot comply with the 600’ setback requirement. There is no comparable language granting discretion to deny a permit on the basis of proximity to a school where the proposed location fully complies with the 600’ setback requirement, as is the case here. To deny the permit on the basis of 24.12.1300.4.B under these circumstances would be in effect to grant unfettered discretion to the City and very likely subject the City to litigation and liability.

WAMM’s Partnership with The Hook is Appropriate and Necessary for WAMM’s Survival.

Finally, this Council should reject any suggestion that the proposed project should not garner the benefit of WAMM’s long history of public service and close collaboration with the City and County due to the fact that the proposed project is undertaken jointly with a for-profit licensed operator, The Hook dispensary. The sad truth is that despite efforts by many supporters to preserve and protect WAMM’s pioneering non-profit collective garden model, in fact WAMM and its patient members have been left behind and abandoned by the new multi-billion dollar commercial cannabis market. The economic reality for WAMM is that its only means of survival is partnership with a for-profit benefactor. The Hook and Bryce Berryessa are to be commended for this endeavor and support for WAMM, and WAMM’s partnership with The Hook at the Emily’s Bakery location should certainly not be held against WAMM or serve to justify denying the permit and destroying WAMM.

Respectfully,
Allen Hopper

EXHIBIT C
Date Time Total Passerby Count
(Walking, Biking, Scooter) % OF SCHS | MHMS STUDENTS PASSING BY 7:30-8:30 11:30-12:30 3:30-4:45 FOR ALL 3 TIME FRAMES OUT OF 1670 TOTAL STUDENTS 4/25/2024 10 23 11 44 2.63%
4/26/2024 8 14 14 36 2.16%
4/29/2024 13 11 31 55 3.29%
4/30/2024 15 14 8 37 2.22%
5/1/2024 11 14 18 43 2.57%
5/2/2024 5 15 37 57 3.41%
5/3/2024 7 26 15 48 2.87%
5/6/2024 7 10 13 30 1.80%
5/7/2024 8 15 23 46 2.75%
5/8/2024 2 18 25 45 2.69%
5/9/2024 4 18 13 35 2.10%
5/10/2024 6 9 15 0.90%
TOTAL 8.00 15.58 18.91 40.92 2.45%
Our latest-generation camera models have improved accuracy and reduced duplicate search results. This is made possible by using the computer vision (CV)-enabled chipset on these cameras, which allows for the use of larger and faster CV models. These models can identify the movements of people and vehicles and combine the detections over multiple frames.

Date Time Total Passerby Count with Backpack
(Walking, Biking, Scooter) SCHS | MHMS 1670 Students Total 7:30-8:30 11:30-12:30 3:30-4:45 FOR ALL 3 TIMES FRAMES % OF SCHS | MHMS STUDENTS PASSING BY 4/25/2024 5 20 6 31 1.86%
4/26/2024 7 10 10 27 1.62%
4/29/2024 0 3 8 11 0.66%
4/30/2024 5 8 6 19 1.14%
5/1/2024 7 9 9 25 1.50%
5/2/2024 4 8 17 29 1.74%
5/3/2024 2 5 9 16 0.96%
5/6/2024 4 5 9 18 1.08%
5/7/2024 6 4 13 23 1.38%
5/8/2024 0 5 13 18 1.08%
5/9/2024 2 14 8 24 1.44%
5/10/2024 1 0 1 0.06%
TOTAL 3.58 7.58 9.82 20.17 1.21%
Our latest-generation camera models have improved accuracy and reduced duplicate search results. This is made possible by using the computer vision (CV)- enabled chipset on these cameras, which allows for the use of larger and faster CV models. These models can identify the movements of people and vehicles and combine the detections over multiple frames.
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Valerie Leveroni Corral <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 7:52 PM
To: Ben Rice
Cc: City Council; Arnold Leff MD; Bryce Berryessa; [email protected] Subject: Re: materials for council members and agenda item re. WAMM 5-14-24 Amazing! tThe JAMA studies nail it
On Fri, May 10, 2024, 12:44 PM Ben Rice <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello, please attach this as part of the WAMM materials. I am providing it on behalf of a witness for the Tuesday meeting, Dr. Arnie Leff.
2 Rosemary Balsley
From: Brandon Roque <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 9:03 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Uphold Your Own Rules, Approve Hook Outlet/WAMM To the Santa Cruz City Council:

As a Santa Cruz Resident, I vehemently support The Hook Outlet’s and WAMM Phytotherapies’ proposed dispensary at 1129 Mission St. This project embodies responsible cannabis business practices, bolsters our economy, and uplifts our most vulnerable citizens –– all priorities explicitly outlined in the city’s general plan.

The Hook Outlet’s partnership with WAMM, our nation’s oldest and most revered medical cannabis collective, guarantees compassionate care remains accessible. For over 30 years, WAMM has provided free medicine to our community’s most critically ill. Denying a dispensary in a location that meets all zoning requirements would be a direct attack on their ability to serve those most in need.

The Hook Outlet consistently exceeds regulatory standards. Their robust security plan, discreet storefront, voluntary age restriction policy, and youth prevention outreach via www.safecannabis.net demonstrate that safeguarding our community, especially its youth, is a core value.

Furthermore, this business is a proven asset to Santa Cruz. They generate jobs, bolster our tax base, and actively support local non-profits. The Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval underscores the project’s merit and compliance.

Denying this applicant, despite their community support and adherence to every guideline, would be a profoundly damaging breach of trust. It signals to businesses that investing in Santa Cruz is a fool’s errand, as regulations are subject to arbitrary change.

I demand that the City Council uphold its commitment to transparency and predictability by approving The Hook Outlet and WAMM’s application. Failure to do so sets a chilling precedent with far-reaching consequences.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Santa Cruz Resident
Sent from my iPhone
3 Rosemary Balsley
From: Rob Blanco <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 9:05 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Uphold Your Own Rules, Approve Hook Outlet/WAMM To the Santa Cruz City Council:

Sincerely,
A Concerned Santa Cruz Resident
Sent from my iPhone
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ben Rice <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 10:10 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Valerie Leveroni Corral; Bryce Berryessa; Tamyra Rice Subject: material relating to Professor Reinarman's testimony at the WAMM/ Hook Appeal hearing on 5/14 Attachments: AJPH article.pdf
Please add this to the council member's 5/14 packet. Professor Reinarman will refer to the attached study and the speech he gave on April 17th:

Legal Studies Distinguished Speakers Reinarman and Dent .
https://vimeo.com/936443197.

Thank you.
836 | Research and Practice | Peer Reviewed | Reinarman et al. American Journal of Public Health | May 2004, Vol 94, No. 5  RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 
Objectives. We tested the premise that punishment for cannabis use deters use and thereby benefits public health.

Methods. We compared representative samples of experienced cannabis users in similar cities with opposing cannabis policies—Amsterdam, the Netherlands (decriminalization), and San Francisco, Calif (criminalization). We compared age at onset, regular and maximum use, frequency and quantity of use over time, intensity and duration of intoxication, career use patterns, and other drug use.

Results. With the exception of higher drug use in San Francisco, we found strong similarities across both cities. We found no evidence to support claims that criminalization reduces use or that decriminalization increases use.

Conclusions. Drug policies may have less impact on cannabis use than is currently thought. (Am J Public Health. 2004;94:836–842) did examine the proposition that drug policies
affect user behavior and deter use. It is possible that the causal arrow points the other way—that user behavior affects laws and policies, which has been the case with alcohol policies in some countries.17 However, the
Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which first criminalized cannabis, predated widespread cannabis use in the United States and had clear political origins.18–21 In the Netherlands, de facto decriminalization of cannabis was first forged
in the late 1960s, when use was spreading
among the youth counterculture. But Dutch
policymakers decided that cannabis use was
unlikely to lead to deeper deviance and that
criminalization could lead to greater harm to
users than the drug itself.3 In neither country,
then, was user behavior the effective cause of
laws or policies.

The presumed effects of cannabis policies
have been explored by those who are critical
of criminalization in the United States22 and
by those who are skeptical of Dutch decriminalization.23 However, until now there have been no rigorously comparative studies of
user behavior designed to assess whether
criminalization constrains use or whether decriminalization increases it. Our study compared the career use patterns of representative samples of experienced cannabis users in 2 cities with many similarities but with differThe Limited Relevance of Drug Policy:

Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco
| Craig Reinarman, PhD, Peter D.A. Cohen, PhD, and Hendrien L. Kaal, PhD ent drug-control regimes—Amsterdam, the
Netherlands (decriminalization), and San
Francisco, Calif (criminalization).

San Francisco was selected as the US comparison city not because it is representative of the United States but because it is the US city
most comparable to Amsterdam. Both cities
are large, highly urbanized port cities with diverse populations of slightly more than 700000. They are financial and entertainment hubs for larger regional conurbations, and they have long been perceived within
their home countries as cosmopolitan, politically liberal, and culturally tolerant.

Law enforcement officials in San Francisco are not as zealous about enforcing marijuana laws as law enforcement officials
are in most other US cities. Nonetheless, San
Francisco is embedded in the drug policy
context of criminalization, which is a markedly different drug policy context than that of Amsterdam. Buying and selling cannabis
are permitted in Amsterdam in 288 licensed
“coffee shops,”24 and public use is permitted,
whereas in San Francisco, buying, selling,
and public use of marijuana remain criminal
offenses. In Amsterdam, there is neither
proactive nor reactive policing of use or lowlevel sales, although police do enforce regulations against coffee shops’ advertising, selling to minors, and creating public nuisances.

There is a trend among Western democracies toward liberalization of cannabis laws. (Cannabis includes both marijuana and
hashish.) In 1976, the Netherlands adopted
de facto decriminalization. Under Dutch law,
possession remains a crime, but the national
policy of the Ministry of Justice is to not enforce that law. After 1980, a system of “coffee shops” evolved in which the purchase of small quantities of cannabis by adults was informally tolerated and was then formally permitted in shops that were licensed.1–3
During the 1990s, Switzerland, Germany,
Spain, Belgium, and Italy shifted their drug
policies in the Dutch direction. Portugal decriminalized cannabis in 2001, and England similarly reclassified cannabis in 2004. Canada and New Zealand are currently considering cannabis decriminalization. These shifts constitute the first steps away from the
dominant drug policy paradigm advocated
by the United States, which is punishmentbased prohibition.4–6 Moving in the opposite direction, the
United States has stiffened criminal penalties
for drug offenses and has increased arrests
for cannabis offenses. Since 1996, voters in
8 states and the District of Columbia have
passed medical-marijuana initiatives, but the
federal government has resisted implementation. In 2001, 723 627 people were arrested for marijuana offenses.7 In 2002, the Drug Enforcement Administration began
raiding medical-marijuana organizations,8
and the White House Office of National
Drug Control Policy launched a campaign
against marijuana.9,10
Such policies are designed to deter use.

The core empirical claim made by criminalization proponents is that, absent the threat of punishment, the prevalence, frequency, and
quantity of cannabis use will increase and will
threaten public health.11–16 The question of
whether deterring use enhances public health
was beyond the scope of our study, but we
May 2004, Vol 94, No. 5 | American Journal of Public Health Reinarman et al. | Peer Reviewed | Research and Practice | 837  RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 
In San Francisco, there is strong proactive
and reactive policing of sales, and there is
moderate reactive policing of use.

These differences in drug policy context
are palpable to users. San Francisco students are suspended from schools and are placed in treatment for marijuana use. San
Francisco users risk citations, fines, and arrests if they are detected buying, possessing, or using marijuana. In Amsterdam, users face none of these risks. The use and
sale of other illicit drugs sometimes used by
cannabis users is proactively policed in San
Francisco. In Amsterdam, police occasionally engage in reactive policing of complaints about open use or sale of other drugs, but they do not proactively patrol in
search of these offenses.

METHODS
We required not merely a random sample
of cannabis users but a random sample of
users who had enough experience (defined as
at least 25 episodes of use during their lifetimes) to answer questions about career use patterns. In Amsterdam, recruitment of users
began as part of a drug-use prevalence survey
of the general population. This survey was administered to a random sample that was obtained from Amsterdam’s Municipal Population Registry. The overall response rate was 50.2%,
which yielded a sample of 4364.25 (The response rate was slightly below the 55% response rate of a 1990 iteration of the survey.

Sampling details and an extensive response/
nonresponse study can be found in Sandwijk
et al.24 or at http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib.)
Comparisons of responders with nonresponders and with known city demographic data indicated no need for weighting. All respondents who reported having used cannabis at least 25 times (n=535; 12.3%) were asked to
participate in an in-depth interview about their
cannabis use. Of these 535 experienced users,
216 (40.5%) were interviewed in 1996.26
This modest response rate necessitated a
check of representativeness. We compared the
216 users who responded with the 319 who
did not on 12 demographic and drug-use
prevalence variables. Respondents had slightly
higher levels of formal education and slightly
higher past-year prevalence of cannabis
use,26,27 but otherwise, they showed no differences compared with nonrespondents and thus were reasonably representative of experienced cannabis users in the general population. Homeless and institutionalized persons were not interviewed for either survey.

Beginning in 1997, the Amsterdam survey of experienced cannabis users was replicated in San Francisco, where there is no population registry. To remain consistent
with Amsterdam, we first drew an area probability sample by randomly selecting census tracts, blocks, buildings, households, and
adults within households. We administered a
brief prevalence survey containing demographic and drug-use prevalence questions.

Unlike the Amsterdam prevalence survey,
which was an extensive study in its own
right, the brief prevalence survey in San
Francisco was principally designed to generate a random representative sample of experienced cannabis users.

The overall response rate of the San Francisco prevalence survey was 52.7%, which yielded a sample of 891.28 Of these respondents, 349 reported that they had used cannabis 25 or more times (39.2% of the population sample and 3 times the prevalence found in the Amsterdam sample) and were
asked to participate in the in-depth interview;
266 (76.2%) respondents were ultimately interviewed in-depth about their career use patterns. As a check on their representativeness, respondents were compared with nonrespondents on 10 demographic and drug-use prevalence variables. No statistically significant differences were found.

The Dutch questionnaire was translated for
use in San Francisco. Non-English-speaking
Asian Americans were excluded because of
the prohibitive costs of translating instruments
and training interviewers in the many Chinese
and other Asian languages found in San Francisco. This exclusion was not consequential, because national prevalence studies show that
illicit drug use among Asian Americans is the
lowest of any ethnic group.29 Also, non–English
speakers are mostly elderly and are thus least
likely to be cannabis users. However, the instruments were translated into Spanish, and bilingual interviewers conducted interviews
when necessary. Homeless and institutionalized persons were not interviewed.

RESULTS
Age at Onset, First Regular Use, and
Maximum Use
The mean age at onset of cannabis use was
nearly identical in both cities: 16.95 years in
Amsterdam and 16.43 years in San Francisco. The mean age at which respondents commenced regular use (≥once per month)
also was nearly identical: 19.11 years in Amsterdam and 18.81 years in San Francisco.

The mean age at which respondents in both
cities began their periods of maximum use
was about 2 years after they began regular
use: 21.46 years in Amsterdam and 21.98
years in San Francisco. Clear majorities in
both cities reported periods of maximum use
of 3 years or less.

Cannabis Use Patterns Over Time
We asked about the frequency and the
quantity of use and the intensity and the duration of intoxication. To assess how these dimensions of use may have changed over time, we asked about each for 4 periods: first year
of regular use (≥once per month), maximumuse period, past year (12 months before the interview), and past 3 months (3 months before the interview).

Frequency of use. Figure 1 shows the frequency of reported marijuana use for these 4 periods; the overall pattern is similar across
both cities. During first year of regular use,
strong majorities reported use of cannabis
once per week or less, whereas small percentages reported daily use. Frequency increased during the period of maximum use but declined sharply thereafter. Amsterdam respondents reported more frequent use than did San Francisco respondents during their first
year of regular use (t=4.019; df=479; P=
.000) and during their period of maximum
use (t=2.979; df=479; I=.003). When the
maximum-use period was compared with the
past year, daily use declined from 49% to
10% in Amsterdam and from 39% to 7% in
San Francisco. This decline was even greater
for the past 3 months.

The basic trajectory of frequency of use
across careers was parallel in both cities. Most
users reported a maximum-use period of 2 to
3 years, after which the vast majority sharply
reduced their frequency of use or stopped al-
838 | Research and Practice | Peer Reviewed | Reinarman et al. American Journal of Public Health | May 2004, Vol 94, No. 5  RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 
7 49
10 9 4
39 7 5
50 40
19 20 35
40 14 15
43 11
32 21
61 20
46 34
38 50
32 46
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
FY
Amsterdam
P3M MP
No use
Less than
once per
week
Once per
week or
more
Daily use
San Francisco
MP FY P3M PY PY
Percentage
Note.FY=first year of regular use (≥once per month); MP=maximum-use period; PY=past year; P3M=past 3 months. a All respondents.

FIGURE 1—Frequency of cannabis use for 4 periods, by city (%).a 3 18
8 9 5
18 6
12 2 1 10
18 3 7
24 37
27 27
25 38
21 22
28 17
23 21
24 16
19 17
38 15
40 41 35
10 53 52
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Amsterdam
<2 grams
2–4 grams
4–14 grams
14–28 grams
>28 grams
4 2
FY P3M MP FY P3M PY MP PY
Percentage
San Francisco
Note.FY= first year of regular use (≥once per month); MP = maximum-use period; PY = last year; P3M = past 3 months. a Respondents who still used at time of survey, for past year and past 3 months.

FIGURE 2—Average quantity of cannabis used per month (%).a together. Roughly three fourths of the respondents in each city reported that they had used cannabis less than once per week or not at all
in the year before the interview.

Quantity of use. Figure 2 shows that in the
first year of regular use, few respondents in
either city consumed large quantities of cannabis. Only 3% in Amsterdam and 5% in San Francisco used 28 grams (approximately 1
ounce) during an average month. Amsterdam
respondents used significantly smaller quantities than did San Francisco respondents during this period. When the 2 smallest categories
were combined, two thirds in Amsterdam
(66%) and slightly less in San Francisco
(59%) were found to have consumed 4 or
fewer grams per month during their first year
of regular use. More than one third used less
than 2 grams per month during their first
year of regular use—38% in Amsterdam and
35% in San Francisco.

Quantities consumed during maximum-use
periods were larger and very similar across
the cities. About two thirds of respondents
consumed an average of 14 or fewer grams
per month—69% in Amsterdam and 64% in
San Francisco. Less than 1 in 5 respondents
in each city (18%) consumed an average of
28 grams per month or more during their
maximum-use periods.

During the year before the interview,
consumption among those who still used
cannabis declined sharply. Clear majorities
used 4 or fewer grams per month, although
this proportion was smaller in Amsterdam
(63%) than in San Francisco (72%) (t=

2.207; df=297; P=.028). About 1 in 3 respondents in each city reported no use.

Overall, the patterns were parallel in both
cities; quantities used increased from first
regular use through maximum use but then
quantities used declined steadily or use
ceased altogether over the course of the respondents’ careers.

Intensity of intoxication. Respondents were
asked to estimate “how high or how stoned
you generally got” when they consumed cannabis. Some recalled this occurence with greater consistency than did others, but all of
them were able to make basic ordinal distinctions between more- and less-intense highs.

To increase reliability of respondents’ estimates, we displayed a 6-point scale ranging from “light buzz” (1) to “very high” (6) and
asked them to select the number that best
summarized their highs during each period.

Figure 3 shows that respondents in both
cities generally increased the intensity of their
highs during periods of maximum use but
moderated their highs thereafter (past-year
and past-month figures exclude those who
had quit). Amsterdam respondents were significantly more likely than San Francisco respondents to report milder intoxication during the first year of regular use and during maximum-use periods: mean scores for the first year were 3.5 in Amsterdam and 3.9 in San
May 2004, Vol 94, No. 5 | American Journal of Public Health Reinarman et al. | Peer Reviewed | Research and Practice | 839  RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 
10 9 15 17
7 5
14 24
12 15
20 31
15 11
25 29
21 21
23 31
23 27
24 23
33 28
26 16
32 26
15 9
21 25
12 4
18 22
11 6 10 7 4
0 5 9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
1: Light buzz
2 3
4 5
6: Very high
FY
Amsterdam
P3M MP
San Francisco
MP FY P3M PY PY
Percentage
3 4
Note. FY = first year of regular use (≥once per month); MP = maximum-use period; PY = past year; P3M = past 3 months. a Respondents who still used at time of survey, for past year and past 3 months.

FIGURE 3—Intensity of intoxication during typical occasion of cannabis use (%).a 22 40
11 11 15
28 9 8
57 39
50 50
57 57
53 52
21 21
39 39
28 14
37 41
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Only an hour
2–3 hours
≥4 hours
FY
Amsterdam
P3M MP
San Francisco
MP FY P3M PY PY
Percentage
Note. FY = first year of regular use (≥once per month); MP = maximum-use period; PY = past year; P3M = past 3 months. a Respondents who still used at time of survey, for past year and past 3 months.

FIGURE 4—Duration of high during a typical occasion of cannabis use (%).a Francisco (t=–3.180; df=476; P=.002), and
these scores rose for maximum-use periods to

3.9 and 4.4, respectively (t=–4.932, df=
413; P=.000).

The same pattern was found for the more
recent periods, although the mean scores declined. The proportion of respondents who chose 6 (very high) remained small and was
between 3% and 7% in both cities. For
highs experienced during the past year, Amsterdam respondents were again more likely to report milder intoxication (t=–2.233;
df=310; P=.026). For the past-3-month
periods, majorities in both cities reported
milder highs of 1 to 3 on the 6-point scale.

In short, respondents in both cities reported
less intoxication with use over the course of
their careers.

Duration of intoxication. We also asked
“about how long” respondents were high
during a typical occasion of cannabis use.

Reported durations were correlated with frequency and with quantity but were not a function of frequency and quantity alone.

Here, too, we found a tendency toward moderation over the course of users’ careers in both cities. Figure 4 shows that Amsterdam
respondents reported highs of somewhat
longer duration than reported by respondents in San Francisco during the first year of regular use (t=2.329; df=476; P=.020).
(One reviewer noted a divergence between
San Francisco respondents, who reported
more intense highs during 3 of the 4 periods,
and Amsterdam respondents, who reported
highs of longer duration during 1 period. Because we found no reason to suspect that either sample played up or played down their responses to any of the questions, this divergence may indicate culture-specific consumption styles or cultural grammars of intoxication.30,31) However, during the other 3 time periods there were no significant differences: in each city, a clear majority of users regulated their ingestion so that highs lasted
2 to 3 hours or less. Substantial minorities in
each city reported being high for 4 or more
hours during maximum-use periods, but
these proportions dropped sharply after
those periods. Of those who used cannabis
during the 3 months before the interview,
89% in Amsterdam and 93% in San Francisco reported being high for 2 to 3 hours or less.

Overall Career Use Patterns
We also asked respondents to characterize
their overall career use patterns. We presented a typology of trajectories32 and asked them to identify the 1 that “best describes”
their cannabis use over time (Table 1).

Two career use patterns were dominant in
both cities. Pattern 4—gradual increased use
followed by sustained decline—was the most
common (49.4% of the combined sample).

The second most common was Pattern 6—
wide variation over time (24.4% of the combined sample). Patterns 1, 2, 3, and 5 were each selected by only 6% to 8% of the com-
840 | Research and Practice | Peer Reviewed | Reinarman et al. American Journal of Public Health | May 2004, Vol 94, No. 5  RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 
TABLE 1—Trajectories of Overall Career
Use
Amsterdam, San Francisco,
Pattern No. (%) No. (%)
1: declining 17 (7.9) 18 (6.8)
2: escalating 13 (6.0) 17 (6.4)
3: stable 24 (11.1) 5 (1.9)
4: increase/ 104 (48.1) 133 (50.4)
decline
5: intermittent 7 (3.2) 25 (9.5)
6: variable 51 (23.6) 66 (25.0)
Total 216 (100.0) 264 (100.0)
Note. χ2= 24.047; df = 5; P = .000. Pattern names
listed as shown to respondents.

TABLE 2—Prevalence of Other Illicit Drug Use, Lifetime and During the Past 3 Months Amsterdam (n = 216) San Francisco (n = 264) Significance χ2 LTP P3MP LTP P3MP LTP P3MP
Cocaine 48.1 9.3 73.2 7.5 * NS
Crack 3.7 0.5 18.1 1.1 * a
Amphetamines 37.5 1.9 60.4 4.5 * NS
Ecstasy 25.5 9.3 40.0 6.4 * NS
Opiates 21.8 0.5 35.5 2.7 * a
Note. LTP= lifetime period; P3MP = past 3 months; NS = not significant. a Too few cases in cells to compute statistical test.
*P < .001.
bined sample. Pattern 3—stable use from the
beginning onward—was selected significantly
more often by Amsterdam respondents
(11.1%) than by San Francisco respondents
(1.9%), whereas Pattern 5—intermittent use
(many starts and stops over time)—was selected significantly more often by San Francisco respondents (9.5%) than by Amsterdam respondents (3.2%).

These findings are consistent with findings
on frequency and quantity of use and intensity and duration of intoxication, and they have important public health implications.

Claims that cannabis produces addiction or
dependence13–15 lead one to expect that
many experienced users would report Pattern 2—escalation of use over time. But this pattern was reported by only 6% in both
cities, which means that 94% of respondents
had overall career use patterns that did not
entail escalation across careers.

Other Illicit Drug Use
Another important question about the effects of drug policies concerns the use of other illicit drugs. The “separation of markets,” in which lawfully regulated cannabis distribution reduces the likelihood that people
seeking cannabis will be drawn into deviant
subcultures where “hard drugs” also are sold
is one public health objective of Dutch decriminalization.1–3 The reduction of cannabis use and thereby the reduction of the extent to
which it serves as a “gateway” to “harder”
drugs is one public health objective of US
criminalization.11,12,14,16
Users who had ingested cannabis 25 times
or more during their lifetimes were far more
prevalent in San Francisco than in Amsterdam, and the same was true for users of other illicit drugs. Table 2 shows a significantly
lower lifetime prevalence of other illicit drug
use in Amsterdam than in San Francisco.

During the 3 months before the interview,
prevalence of crack and opiate use also were
significantly higher in San Francisco, but cocaine, amphetamine, and ecstasy use were not significantly different. Thus, rates of discontinuation—the decline from lifetime prevalence to prevalence during the past 3 months—were somewhat higher in San Francisco for cocaine, amphetamine, and ecstasy; however, rates of discontinuation were high
(64%–98%) for all drugs in both cities.

DISCUSSION
Proponents of criminalization attribute to
their preferred drug-control regime a special
power to affect user behavior. Our findings
cast doubt on such attributions. Despite
widespread lawful availability of cannabis in
Amsterdam, there were no differences between the 2 cities in age at onset of use, age at first regular use, or age at the start of maximum use. Either availability in San Francisco is equivalent to that in Amsterdam despite policy differences, or availability per se does not strongly influence onset or other career phases.

We also found consistent similarities in patterns of career use across the different policy contexts. Although a few significant differences were found in some dimensions of use during some career phases, the basic trajectory was the same in both cities on all dimensions of use: increasing use until a limited period of maximum use, followed by a sustained decrease in use over time or by cessation. It is
significant, from a public health perspective,
that clear majorities of experienced users in
both cities never used daily or used large
amounts even during their peak periods, and
that use declined after those peak periods.

Furthermore, both samples reported similar
steady declines in degree and duration of intoxication. Only 6% in each city reported escalation of use over time.

We expected differences in drug policies to
affect the duration of cannabis-use careers
and the rates of cessation. Criminalization is
designed to decrease availability, discourage
use, and provide incentives to quit. Decriminalization is said to increase availability, encourage use, and provide disincentives to quit. Thus, we expected longer careers and
fewer quitters in Amsterdam, but our findings did not support these expectations. Cannabis careers ranged from 1 to 38 years, and 95% of respondents in both cities reported
careers of 3 years or longer. The mean career length was slightly greater in San Francisco (15 years) than in Amsterdam (12 years), but this finding was mostly because of the
somewhat higher mean age in the San Francisco sample (34 years vs 31 years). Similarly, nearly identical proportions of respondents in each city had quit by the time they were interviewed—33.8% in Amsterdam
and 34.3% in San Francisco.

If drug policies are a potent influence on
user behavior, there should not be such
May 2004, Vol 94, No. 5 | American Journal of Public Health Reinarman et al. | Peer Reviewed | Research and Practice | 841  RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 
strong similarities across such different drug
control regimes. Our findings do not support
claims that criminalization reduces cannabis
use and that decriminalization increases cannabis use. Moreover, Dutch decriminalization does not appear to be associated with greater
use of other illicit drugs relative to drug use
in San Francisco, nor does criminalization in
San Francisco appear to be associated with
less use of other illicit drugs relative to their
use in Amsterdam. Indeed, to judge from the
lifetime prevalence of other illicit drug use,
the reverse may be the case.

Our study has limitations and should be
replicated in other cities over longer periods.

While our findings share the limitations of all
self-report studies (e.g., vague or selective
memory, over- or understatements of fact),
we attempted to minimize these limitations by
means of carefully worded questions, extensive pretesting, and use of multiple measures.

The questionnaire is available under questionnaire at http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/cohen. canasd.html. Our comparable samples and
measures helped isolate the effects of drug
policies, but “all else” is not necessarily
“equal.” Cultural and social conditions in the
United States are different from in the
Netherlands; therefore, cannabis use might increase if the United States were to adopt a Dutch approach. Further studies that examine
prevalence before and after policy shifts
would be illuminating, although previous
studies of the impact of marijuana decriminalization among 11 US states during the 1970s found no increases.33–36
One hypothesis for future research is that
with a widely used drug like cannabis, the informal social controls that users develop as part of their culture30,31,37–39 have more powerful regulatory effects on their behavior than do formal social controls such as drug policies. This possibility emerged from responses to questions about the circumstances respondents found appropriate for cannabis use. In both cities, relaxation was the most common
purpose of use, and majorities from both
cities reported that they typically used cannabis with friends and at social gatherings. Majorities in both cities most often mentioned work or study as situations in which use was
inappropriate. In both cities, 69% reported
negative emotional states as unsuitable for
cannabis use, and 80% reported having advised novices about the virtues of moderation.

CONCLUSIONS
These data suggest that most experienced
users organize their use according to their
own subcultural etiquette—norms and rules
about when, where, why, with whom, and
how to use—and less to laws or policies.

When experienced users abide by such etiquette, they appear to regulate their cannabis use so as to minimize the risk that it will interfere with normal social functioning. This pattern suggests that if formal drug policies
are based on the folk (informal) drug policies
users themselves already practice, drug policies may achieve greater relevance.

About the Authors
Craig Reinarman is with the Department of Sociology,
University of California, Santa Cruz, Calif. Peter D.A.

Cohen and Hendrien L. Kaal are with the Centre for Drug Research, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Craig Reinarman, Department of Sociology, University of California, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 (e-mail:
[email protected]).

This article was accepted June 7, 2003.

Contributors
C. Reinarman assisted in conceiving the study and analyzing the data. H.L. Kaal composed the figures and the tables that form the core of the data analysis. P.D.A.

Cohen proposed the study, led its conceptualization, designed and supervised the data analysis, and assisted with writing the article.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the generous financial support of the Dutch Ministry of Health and the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (grant 1 R01
DA10501–01A1), which made this research possible.

We thank Manja Abraham, Ira Glasser, Harry G.

Levine, Marsha Rosenbaum, Arjan Sas, and 3 anonymous American Journal of Public Health reviewers for their helpful comments. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 97th Annual Meeting of the
American Sociological Association, Chicago, Ill, August 15–19, 2002.

Human Participant Protection
This protocol was approved by all relevant institutional review boards and funding agencies.

References

1. Engelsman EL. Dutch policy on the management
of drug-related problems. Br J Addiction. 1989;84:
211–218.

2. Leuw E, Marshall IH, eds. Between Prohibition and
Legalization: The Dutch Experiment in Drug Policy. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Kugler Publications; 1994.

3. Cohen PDA. The case of the two Dutch drug policy commissions: an exercise in harm reduction, 1968– 1976. In: Erickson PG, Riley DM, Cheung YW, O’Hare
PA, eds. Harm Reduction: A New Direction for Drug Policies and Programs. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press; 1997:17–31.

4. Musto D. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotics Control. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press; 1973.

5. Bruun K, Pan L, Rexed I. The Gentlemen’s Club: International Control of Drugs and Alcohol. Chicago, Ill:

University of Chicago Press; 1975.

6. Bewley-Taylor D. The United States and International Drug Control, 1909–1997. London, England:

Continuum; 2001.

7. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime
Report: Crime in the United States, 2001. Washington,
DC: US Dept of Justice; 2002.

8. Murphy DE. California: medicinal marijuana raid.

New York Times. September 6, 2002:A20.

9. Office of National Drug Control Policy. An open
letter to parents about marijuana. New York Times. September 18, 2002:A23.

10. Office of National Drug Control Policy. My child is not an honor student. New York Times. October 7,
2002:A5.

11. Kandel DB, Yamaguchi K, Chen K. Stages of progression in drug involvement from adolescence to adulthood: further evidence for the gateway theory.

J Stud Alcohol. 1992;53:447–457.

12. Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. Cigarettes, Alcohol, and Marijuana: Gateways to Illicit Drugs.

New York, NY: Center on Addiction and Substance
Abuse; 1995.

13. Hall W, Solowij N, Lemon J. The Health and Psychological Consequences of Cannabis Use. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service;
1994.

14. National Institute on Drug Use (NIDA). Marijuana: What Parents Need to Know. Rockville, Md:

NIDA; 1995.

15.Swan N. Marijuana antagonist reveals evidence of
THC dependence in rats. NIDA Notes. 1995;10:1–2.

16. Office of National Drug Control Policy. Drug Facts:

Marijuana. Available at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy. gov. Accessed May 16, 2003.

17. Christie N. Scandinavian experience in legislation
and control. National Conference on Legal Issues in Alcoholism and Alcohol Usage, Swampscott, Mass, 17–19 June 1965. Boston, Mass: Law–Medicine Institute, Boston University; 1965.

18. Becker HS. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of
Deviance. New York, NY: Free Press; 1963.

19. Dickson DT. Bureaucracy and morality: an organizational perspective on a moral crusade. Soc Problems. 1968;16:143–156.

20. Bonnie RJ, Whitebread CH. The Marihuana Conviction: A History of Marihuana Prohibition in the United States. Charlottesville, Va: University of Virginia Press; 1974.

21. Himmelstein JL. The Strange Career of Marihuana:
842 | Research and Practice | Peer Reviewed | Reinarman et al. American Journal of Public Health | May 2004, Vol 94, No. 5  RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 
Politics and Ideology of Drug Control in America. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press; 1983.

22. Nadelmann EA. Drug prohibition in the US: costs,
consequences, and alternatives. Science. 1989;245:
939–947.

23. MacCoun RJ, Reuter P. Interpreting Dutch cannabis policy: reasoning by analogy in the legalization debate. Science. 1997;278:47–52.

24. Bieleman B, Goeree P. Coffee Shops Geteld: Aantallen Verkooppunten van Cannabis in Nederland [Coffee Shops Counted: Numbers of Points of Sale of Cannabis
in the Netherlands]. Groningen, the Netherlands: Stichting Intraval; 2000.

25. Sandwijk PJ, Cohen PDA, Musterd S, Langemeijer
MPS. Licit and Illicit Drug Use in Amsterdam Vol II. University of Amsterdam, Centre for Drug Research, 1995.

26. Cohen PDA, Sas A. Patterns of Cannabis Use in
Amsterdam Among Experienced Users. Amsterdam, the
Netherlands: University of Amsterdam, Centre for Drug
Research; 1997.

27. Cohen PDA, Kaal H. The Irrelevance of Drug Policy: Patterns and Careers of Experienced Cannabis Use in the Populations of Amsterdam, San Francisco, and Bremen. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: University of Amsterdam, Centre for Drug Research; 2001.

28.Piazza, T, Cheng, Y. Sampling Methods and Field
Results of the San Francisco Drug Use Study. Berkeley,
Calif: University of California, Survey Research Center; 1999. Technical Report 44.

29. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Preliminary Estimates From the 1994 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Rockville, Md: US Dept of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies; 1995.

30. MacAndrew C, Edgerton R. Drunken Comportment: A Social Explanation. Chicago, Ill: Aldine; 1969.

31. Alasutari P. Desire and Craving: A Cultural Theory
of Alcoholism. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press; 1992.

32. Morningstar P, Chitwood D. The Patterns of Cocaine Use. Rockville, Md: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1983.

33. Crusky WR, Berger LH, Richardson AH. The effects of marijuana decriminalization on drug use patterns. Contempor Drug Problems. 1978;7:491–532.

34. Johnston LD, Bachman JG, O’Malley PM. Marijuana Decriminalization: The Impact on Youth, 1975– 1980. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research; 1981. Monitoring the Future, Occasional Paper 13.

35. Single EW. The impact of marijuana decriminalization. Res Adv Alcohol Drug Problems. 1981;6:
405–424.

36. Maloff D. A review of the effects of the decriminalization of marijuana. Contempor Drug Problems. 1981;10:307–322.

37. Becker HS. History, culture, and subjective experience: an exploration of the social bases of drug-induced experiences. J Health Soc Behav. 1967;8:162–176.

38. Maloff D, Becker HS, Fonaroff A, Rodin J. Informal social controls and their influence on substance use. In: Zinberg NE, Harding WM, eds. Control Over
Intoxicant Use: Pharmacological, Psychological, and Social Considerations. New York, NY: Human Sciences Press; 1982:53–76.

39. Zinberg NH. Drug, Set, and Setting: The Basis for
Controlled Intoxicant Use. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press; 1984.

American Public Health Association
Publication Sales
Web: www.apha.org
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel: (301) 893-1894
FAX: (301) 843-0159
This unique book highlights the lessons learned from and about AIDS over the past 20 years, and highlights the
knowledge that may advance worthwhile
strategies for combating HIV and AIDS in
the future. The 11 chapters include: The
Virus Versus the Immune System, How
Infectious is Infectious, The Race against
Time: The Challenge for Clinical Trials,
Sex and Drugs and the Virus, and more.

This book is an ideal reference for
Infectious disease specialists ❚ Epidemiologists ❚ Public health practitioners ❚ Clinicians ❚ All those concerned with AIDS.

ISBN 0-87553-176-8
2000 ❚ 350 pages ❚ softcover
$25.00 APHA Members
$36.00 Nonmembers
plus shipping and handling
The Emergence of AIDS
The Impact on Immunology,
Microbiology and Public Health
Edited by Kenneth H. Mayer, MD,
and H. F. Pizer
EA01J7
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Michael Rotkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2024 11:16 AM
To: City Council; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Sonja Brunner; Martine Watkins; Fred Keeley; Sandy Brown; Scott Newsome; Renee Golder
Subject: Council agenda item on the dispensary for WAMM at the former Emily's Bakery site May 11, 2024
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center St, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
We write to express our strong support for the proposed cannabis dispensary at the site of the former Emily’s Bakery on Mission and Laurel Streets. This project, in partnership with Valerie Corral and the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), offers a unique opportunity to continue providing crucial services to our community.

Valerie Corral is a highly respected leader in medical marijuana advocacy, and we have worked with her on initiatives like the United Way’s Compassionate Use Initiative and Santa Cruz County's Community Prevention Partners. For more than 30 years, WAMM has provided compassionate care to individuals with chronic or terminal illnesses, offering services at low or no cost. This dispensary will continue this vital legacy and aims to support more than 200 members by the end of 2024.

The facility meets all city zoning and safety requirements, exceeding the minimum distance from the nearest school by a considerable margin. It will operate with limited signage and ensure no cannabis products are visible from the street. Additionally, sales will be restricted to those aged 19 and older, prioritizing safety.

We urge the Council to approve this dispensary, which will ensure that those most in need receive the care and support they deserve while upholding public safety and responsible business practices.

Sincerely,
State Senator John Laird, former State Assemblymember; former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor
Mark Stone, former State Assemblymember; former Santa Cruz County Supervisor John Leopold, former Santa Cruz County Supervisor
Jim Hart, Sheriff of Santa Cruz County
2 Gail Michaelis-Ow
Les and Nancy Gardner
Dana McRae, retired Santa Cruz County Counsel
John Leopold, former Santa Cruz County Supervisor
Don Lane, former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor Michael Rotkin, former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor Emily Reilly, former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor Andrew Goldenkranz, Public Educator; Chair of Santa Cruz County Democratic Central Committee (for identification purposes only)
Jenni Veitch-Olson, Watsonville Planning Commissioner; Vice-chair of Santa Cruz County Democratic Central Committee (for identification purposes only) Rudy Escalante, retired Capitola Chief of Police
Gary Patton, Environmental Attorney and former Santa Cruz County Supervisor Dr. Arnold Leff, former County Public Health Officer
Craig Reinarman, UCSC Professor of Sociology and Legal Studies Emeritus Dick Wasserstrom, UCLA Professor of Law; UCSC Professor of Philosophy Emeritus Dan Haifley, American Environmentalist; Newspaper Columnist Dr. Michelle Massie and Dana Massie
Miriam Stombler, retired Assistant County Counsel
Peggy Flynn, Nonprofit Consultant
Alan Heit, DDS
Larry Bernstein, founder of Cypress Health Institute
Scott Roseman
Ian Rice, co-founder of Santa Cruz Laboratories; founder and CEO of Envirocann Phil Engfer, co-founder of Strong Agronomy
3 Pat Malo, Manager of Envirocann
Richard Deutsch, Sculptor
Drew Pieros, retired local Business Owner; Musician
Liz Fowler, Educator; local Business Owner
Tammi Brown, “Artist of the Year” in 2024 by the Arts Commission of Santa Cruz County Tamyra Rice, retired Assistant County Counsel
Ben Rice, retired Criminal Defense Attorney; former attorney for WAMM

4 Rosemary Balsley
From: Michael Rotkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2024 1:28 PM
To: City Council; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Sonja Brunner; Martine Watkins; Fred Keeley; Sandy Brown; Scott Newsome; Renee Golder
Subject: Support for WAMM's application for a dispensary at the corner of Laurel and Mission.

Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers:

Please disregard my earlier email (dated May 11 at 11:15am). I simply meant to provide you with the list of individuals who support Assemblymember Gail Pellerin’s May 8, 2024 letter to you. Kindly see the following list:

State Senator John Laird, former State Assemblymember; former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor Mark Stone, former State Assemblymember; former Santa Cruz County Supervisor John Leopold, former Santa Cruz County Supervisor
Jim Hart, Sheriff of Santa Cruz County
Gail Michaelis-Ow
Les and Nancy Gardner
Dana McRae, retired Santa Cruz County Counsel
John Leopold, former Santa Cruz County Supervisor
Don Lane, former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor Michael Rotkin, former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor Emily Reilly, former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor Andrew Goldenkranz, Public Educator; Chair of Santa Cruz County Democratic Central Committee (for identification purposes only)
Jenni Veitch-Olson, Watsonville Planning Commissioner; Vice-chair of Santa Cruz County Democratic Central Committee (for identification purposes only)
5 Rudy Escalante, retired Capitola Chief of Police
Gary Patton, Environmental Attorney and former Santa Cruz County Supervisor Dr. Arnold Leff, former County Public Health Officer
Craig Reinarman, UCSC Professor of Sociology and Legal Studies Emeritus Dick Wasserstrom, UCLA Professor of Law; UCSC Professor of Philosophy Emeritus Dan Haifley, American Environmentalist; Newspaper Columnist Dr. Michelle Massie and Dana Massie
Miriam Stombler, retired Assistant County Counsel
Peggy Flynn, Nonprofit Consultant
Alan Heit, DDS
Larry Bernstein, founder of Cypress Health Institute
Scott Roseman
Ian Rice, co-founder of Santa Cruz Laboratories; founder and CEO of Envirocann Phil Engfer, co-founder of Strong Agronomy
Pat Malo, Manager of Envirocann
Richard Deutsch, Sculptor
Drew Pieros, retired local Business Owner; Musician
Liz Fowler, Educator; local Business Owner
Tammi Brown, “Artist of the Year” in 2024 by the Arts Commission of Santa Cruz County Tamyra Rice, retired Assistant County Counsel
Ben Rice, retired Criminal Defense Attorney; former attorney for WAMM 7 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jeffrey Werner <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 9:13 AM
To: Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Sonja Brunner; Sandy Brown; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins; City Council
Cc: Jeffrey Werner
Subject: Deny Appeal on Mission St Hook dispensary
City Council
The City should play fair with the Hook dispensary. They followed all the rules and are being a good neighbor.

Regards,
Jeffrey
Jeffrey Werner
[email protected]
831-247-0247
Got Bass?
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: thomas demeo <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 9:49 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Hook Outlet
Please oppose the dispensary close to SC high school.

Here is some research on the dangers of cannabis. 4 dispensaries is enough in our small city.

What's Wrong with Marijuana? | 5-Minute Videos
youtu.be
How does marijuana use affect school,
work, and social life? | National Institute
on Drug Abuse
nida.nih.gov
https://studyfinds.org/kids-cannabis-majority-of-parents-say-dispensaries-should-not-be-nearschools/ Sent from my iPhone
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ben Rice <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 10:27 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Valerie Leveroni Corral; Bryce Berryessa; [email protected] Subject: [CAUTION: Verify Sender Before Opening!] Materials for the 5/14 Agenda Item re: WAMM/ the HOOK dispensary
Attachments: Senator John Laird's WAMM Sentinl Op-ed.docx; Ben Rice's Op-ed .docx Dear Ms. Bush: Please include these two Op-Ed pieces with the 5/14 Agenda Item re: WAMM/ the HOOK proposed dispensary.

Thank you! Call me with any questions, please: Ben Rice, 831 247 1105 By Sen. John Laird
I’ve been involved in the Santa Cruz community since I arrived as a student at UCSC in 1968, and I realize it gives me a historical perspective those who have come of age since are not aware of.

It has been almost two generations since the dawn of the AIDS Crisis gripped our country and our county, and it is hard to believe that even in the Santa Cruz community it was a very difficult road until the drug cocktail became available that limited the effects of HIV.

In the 10-year period beginning in 1985, roughly 240 Santa Cruz County residents died from HIV. In the mid-1980s, six of us formed the Santa Cruz AIDS Project (SCAP), a nonprofit community mobilization to provide education and client services. I was executive director in the 1990s, and at one time in that period we had 225 clients and 600 regular volunteers. We faced many challenges then. For example, it was almost impossible to find local dental services for people with HIV. Our dental program was transportation vouchers to San Francisco, where such care could be found.

Most of those who died in that period were our clients. Counted among them were many of my friends. But in a community as small as ours, almost no one was not touched by the epidemic. Among those lost were well-known community members — a letter carrier, local physician, business owner, teacher and many more.

There were many individuals — among them medical personnel, mental health therapists, massage therapists, friends and family — who volunteered to help in some way. I will always remember and be grateful for those individuals and organizations that took the risk to step up in those difficult times.

The disease ravaged those with HIV. A majority considered being diagnosed a death sentence. In the final weeks and months, it was a painful experience. One of the few things that helped with symptoms was cannabis — which, at the time, was not even legal for medicinal purposes. It was a risk to grow and provide cannabis for those it truly helped. It was an incredible act of legal bravery and personal compassion.

One organization in particular stepped up — Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana, known as WAMM. Val Corral, together with her then-husband Michael — were at the core of the organization. She was in a major automobile accident earlier in her life, which led them to this issue due to her own medicinal needs. They were arrested in this period for their actions.

Why do I write about this today? WAMM is a partner in an application for a cannabis dispensary in the former Emily’s Bakery in Santa Cruz. They invested their savings in bringing the property up to speed for this use, and met all the city requirements and made it through the permit process. The application was appealed to the Planning Commission, which voted 5-2 to approve the application. It will now be in front of the City Council on May 14. It is a simple act of fairness to approve this application, since they invested their savings, played by the existing rules, and would quite likely go broke as individuals and an organization if it is not approved.

I am loathe to express an opinion on any local planning matter, particularly since I deal with my share of controversies at the state level. But I have always had a special place in my heart for those who stood up in a challenging time, when many did not. I could not live with myself if I remained silent about their history and the fairness in this matter.

It is the local school district that has pushed to not approve this application. I sympathize with some concerns. Last year I authored legislation to require a pamphlet on cannabis to be distributed to first-time buyers, and a second bill to allow for easier access to illegal grows for the state water board, now that there is a legal process for cannabis. With former Assemblymember Mark Stone, I previously authored a successful bill to set up common testing standards for laboratories that test cannabis before its sale. When voters approved the initiative for legalization, it is now up to us to make the system work.

WAMM’s application has adhered to the current city rules, and most of the fears about this location apply to other locations that pre-exist in Santa Cruz. I hope that the history of WAMM will count for something in the process. They stood up for people in need when not many others were standing up for them. I hope that people stand up for them now.

State Sen. John Laird represents the 17th District.

Outrage over possible cannabis dispensary at Mission and Laurel SAVE WAMM!
Our City School Superintendent Chris Munro’s Office sent a letter to parents warning of a catastrophe: allowing a cannabis dispensary, partly owned by WAMM (Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana/ WAMM Phytotherapies), to open on Mission Street at Laurel in the now closed Emily’s Bakery. The outrage should be over the misrepresentations contained in the letter which claims that the proposed dispensary is “a block … from Santa Cruz High…,” and “on a well-established walking route to and from- from school and during breaks for both Santa Cruz High and Mission Hill students.” These claims do not reflect reality. I live on the Westside of town, proudly taught Mock Trial for four years at Santa Cruz High and know that the now closed Emily’s Bakery is several blocks away from the schools. And, students neither cross Mission Street at Laurel, (they cross at Walnut Street), nor do they walk or ride their bikes along Mission Street to either school.

The City Council will be voting on this issue on May 14th! My hope is that the Council is not persuaded by these misrepresentations and the letters and phone calls that resulted from them.

Don’t know about WAMM? Our community has appreciated its non-profit work for 30 years. Health professionals, including Arnie Leff, MD, who was both the County and the City’s Health Officer, law enforcement leaders like former Police Chief Rudy Escalante, and many of our most beloved civic leaders, including Senator John Laird, former Mayor, and Supervisor Mardi Wormhoudt, have celebrated and thanked Val and WAMM throughout the years.

WAMM’s story was told all over America after its Medical Marijuana Collective was raided by Federal Agents in 2002. A significant legal battle ensued, and some of the best attorneys in the U.S. helped WAMM. The City of Santa Cruz and the County of Santa Cruz joined WAMM in fighting the Feds because these entities realized the community benefit of WAMM helping the local sick, dying, and poor population. WAMM changed cannabis history for the entire U.S. because the case resulted in the federal government agreeing to leave medical cannabis collectives alone as long as they were complying with local and state laws. Medical cannabis has helped millions of people. You can read about it here:
https://wammphytotherapies.org/about.

The Superintendent and other leaders in opposition to the dispensary are worried about our youth falling into the clutches of marijuana. I get the concern. We need to parent wisely. But what lesson will our youth take away from this process? Answer: if you want to change local laws, it is OK to exaggerate and misrepresent facts to get what you want.

Before drawing a map showing authorized dispensary locations i The City of Santa Cruz dentified a few locations where dispensaries could be located safely and appropriately. Part of that work was looking at government-funded research that addresses the concern about location: yhttps://norml.org/marijuana/fact-sheets/societal-impacts-of-cannabis-dispensariesretail\s/ This proposed dispensary would operate within an approved location under the City’s ordinance. And, the City Planning Department and the City Planning Commission both have authorized the project.
.

Val Corral, with her then-husband Michael, started WAMM more than 30 years ago, and she has put every nickel she has saved into this project. She and the WAMM non-profit, will be lost If the city withdraws their OK. Our citizens who can’t afford dispensary prices will be without the marijuana that has made their lives a little bit easier. They have been limping along working out of their partner’s dispensary, The Treehouse Dispensary on Soquel Ave., for approximately a year. WAMM meetings take place there once per month and WAMM has designated days for the members to pick up their cannabis.

Will the City Council turn its back on WAMM now, when former City and County leaders made national history by supporting WAMM’s efforts to aid the sick and dying? And, where is their concern that the public is being manipulated?

So what is the “ask” here? Before May 14, please contact the City of Santa Cruz at [email protected] or by phone at 831-420-5020 and let them know it would be inexcusable to pull the rug out from under WAMM and the people who rely on its remarkable work. Please share this information, and remember, your text or phone call today may make the difference!
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jane Weed-Pomerantz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 11:32 AM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]; Tony Condotti
Subject: May 14, 2024 Council agenda item #25: 1129 Mission Street Planning Commission appeal of a cannabis business
Re. May 14, 2024 Council agenda item #25: 1129 Mission Street Planning Commission appeal of a cannabis business
Good day Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers.

I now have a strong position to support the cannabis business at Laurel and Mission after further reading and discussion. I understand the feelings of opponents who believe this type of business is too close to a school. Their concerns have little bearing because if teenagers who want to get marijuana or alcohol they'll find a way. Council policy permits this type of business at this location. Your self-appointed Planning Commission strongly supported approval for this business. Support of the appeal financially penalizes and undermines a business that followed all the rules and policies put forth by the Council. How can you move the goalposts after the business followed everything the City required. This would undermine Santa Cruz as a business friendly city?
Councilmember Golder must recuse herself from voting on this issue. She has a personal and financial interest in opposing this business. Her employer, Santa Cruz City Schools, has taken a vehement position to stop this business. Her job could be jeopardized should she support it. Her administrative bosses, Staff, work colleagues, and parents of her students have strongly influenced her. Should she support denial of the appeal. Ms. Golder could be shunned, harassed, transferred, or even demoted. Ms.

Golder is not always objective on issues before Council, but in this case it’s understandable that she cannot be objective. Make sure the City Attorney advises Ms. Golder to step off the dais when this issue is up for consideration.

I strongly urge you to deny the appeal and support this business.

In an extremely unusual move Senator Laird wrote to support that this business be given approval to proceed. This business will provide an essential service to people suffering, even on a low or no 2 cost basis. Also I believe If you don't they have extremely strong grounds for a lawsuit and they'll win. Save them time and money as well as our precious tax dollars.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.

Ron Pomerantz
3 Rosemary Balsley
From: Sandra L. Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 12:01 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Cannabis dispensary at Laurel and Mission
Dear Mayor and City Council members…….I am in a state of disbelief about the objections to this business. It been approved by the Planning Commission and meets all the requirements for operation. Have any of these appellants ever been to a dispensary? Have any of you? You can’t get in one or make a purchase without an ID. Plain and simple!
Where are all these appellants when the SCHS students, by the droves, are on break and head to the gas station at the corner of Mission and Walnut to load up on candy and soda? But that’s okay and doesn’t affect the students health? I won’t even pull in there for gas when the parking lot of the gas station is overrun with students. No ID required so they’re free to tank up on sugar, a known inflammatory.

This dispensary deserves to exist. Their business model to relieve pain and suffering far outweighs any perceived risk. And I do mean perceived since it’s baseless.

Thank you.

Sandra Cohen
172 Peach Terrace
Santa Cruz 95060
4 Rosemary Balsley
From: Dominic Romano <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 2:29 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Uphold Your Own Rules, Approve Hook Outlet/WAMM To the Santa Cruz City Council:

Sincerely,
Dominic Romano
A Concerned Santa Cruz Resident
5 Rosemary Balsley
From: Benjamin Medved <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 6:08 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Uphold Your Own Rules, Approve Hook Outlet/WAMM To the Santa Cruz City Council:

Sincerely,
A Concerned Santa Cruz Resident
Ben
Benjamin A. Medved, M.S.

Licensed Marriage and FamilyTherapist #25688
900 North San Antonio Rd, Suite210, Los Altos, CA 95060 6 Cell: (650) 996-4048
Fax: (650) 772-5363
“The Owl of Minerva flies only at dusk.”
G.W.F. Hegel

The information enclosed and attached is protected and confidential health information under California State Law and Federal regulation (HIPAA, CFR, CCR, et seq.) Unauthorized reading of this email is prohibited under both Federal and State laws and regulations (HIPAA, CFR, CCR, et seq.). If you are not the authorized recipient of this email, please discontinue reading this immediately, securely delete this email, call 650.996.4048 ASAP about the misdelivery of this email, and/or contact [email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
7 Rosemary Balsley
From: Isaiah <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 6:46 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Uphold Your Own Rules, Approve Hook Outlet/WAMM To the Santa Cruz City Council:

Sincerely,
A Concerned Santa Cruz Resident
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Joyce Anue Yoga <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 10:47 AM
To: City Council
Subject: In Support of WAMM
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to urge you to NOT appeal the previous decision of the City Planning Department which approved WAMM’s application for a dispensary in the old site of Emily’s Bakery on Mission St in Santa Cruz.

WAMM has been supporting some of our neediest patients with obtaining safe and effective medicine for serious health conditions for 30 years.

Sincerely,
Joyce Anue (Felton)
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Steve McCarty <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 10:58 AM
To: City Council
Subject: (Item 25) Please uphold the appeal of the Planning Commission approval, and deny the permit Dear Mayor and City Council Members:

Even though the business owner may have understood the city to be giving permission to proceed, it is very clear that many community members, parents, and Santa Cruz City Schools staff and administration all see the serious flaws in this proposed location. No one thinks that students can walk in the door of a dispensary and come away with gummies, vape pens or weed, but anyone with teenagers or even a snippet of reasonable thinking knows that shoulder tapping does occur, drug dealing does occur, and that proximity to a high school with an open campus policy equals potential problems. Just because it is legal does not make it a good idea. This is not an indictment of WAMM, which has performed a community service for vets and others in medical need, but reflects on location, location, location, and this is a very poor one. WAMM can still conduct its business from the Hook's other Treehouse location, which also has a drive through. Please look beyond the letter of the law to address the common sense (or lack thereof) of this poorly chosen location, and uphold the appeal. Please prioritize the health and well being of our school aged children.

Thank you,
Steve McCarty
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: stephanie kimitsuka <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 11:10 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Support for proposed dispensary at 1129 Mission St Attachments: -4473409440143853053.jpg; 2782788563174216865.jpg Hello Council Members,
I want to address the concerns about the proposed dispensary at 1129 Mission Street and the idea that its presence and signage will further normalize cannabis use among our youth.

First, it's important to clarify that the intersection of Mission and Laurel Streets, where the dispensary would be located, is not a primary route for our students. In contrast, California and King Streets, as well as Walnut Avenue, see a far higher frequency of student traffic.

The argument that a single dispensary sign will influence youth behavior seems overstated when you consider the broader scope of what kids are exposed to in today’s world. Most youth have access to smartphones, exposing them to far more significant influences than a storefront ever could.

It’s worth noting that a prominent cannabis company currently has a large 4x6 foot banner blatantly displayed at the Santa Cruz High School Football Field. This raises serious questions about the consistency of the opposition’s stance on cannabis exposure in educational environments.

This banner is not only visible during games attended by hundreds of students, but also during daily physical education classes and numerous athletic activities that take place on those grounds. The existence of this banner in that location highlights a major discrepancy in the opposition’s claimed philosophy.

This inconsistency calls into question the outrage from the opposition to a dispensary sign on Mission Street, suggesting that concerns may be selectively applied and not aligned with a broader, more equitable approach to managing cannabis visibility in our community.

Furthermore, our community faces more visible drug-related challenges, especially near Harvey West Park, which sees a ton of foot traffic from families. The real issues we should be paying attention to are the drug activities in these public spaces, which are far more conspicuous and harmful to our youth than a dispensary sign.

In conclusion, if we are genuinely committed to the well-being of our youth, our focus should be directed towards meaningful and comprehensive drug education and prevention, rather than symbolic gestures that do not address the root of the problem. Let's use our resources and energy to tackle the real challenges, ensuring a safer, healthier environment for all our residents.

Thank you for considering my perspective.

Stephanie Kimitsuka
Resident of Live Oak and concerned parent

1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Doug Huskey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 11:52 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Dispensary Appeal
Please support WAMM and our local process by approving the proposal for Hook Outlet and WAMM to have a dispensary at the former site of Emily's bakery.

WAMM has done so much to help so many in this community, and it is only fair that we follow our own zoning rules in approving the project. If some wish to have a new criteria for approving cannabis dispensaries, then that should be approved and made law. That is how the process is changed, not by simply turning down a project because there is opposition to it.

Thank you,
Doug Huskey
701 Highland Ave.

Santa Cruz
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jessica Bond <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 12:02 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Regular Meeting: May 14, 2024: Item 25
Hello Mayor and City Councilmembers,
My name is Jessi Bond. I was born & raised in Santa Cruz and I am a former City of Santa Cruz employee. I am writing today to request you adopt a resolution denying the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Administrative Use Permit to establish a cannabis retail facility at 1129 Mission Street.

I am sure you will hear from many people about how cannabis shops are extremely safe,well regulated and are very proactive in not allowing minors into the stores. I completely agree with these statements but hope to provide a different proceptive.

As a city employee for seven years, I helped create APOs, ordinances and policies. I am very familiar with the City's processes. The business owners of The Hook have followed all required laws, policies and procedures to obtain their permit. If there are concerned citizens, council members or other members of the public who wish to change our laws, there are clear paths to do so, this is not it. We should be supporting small businesses and certainly should not be punishing one business because of a few upset people.

The burden of proof of violation is on the appellate and they must file in accordance with rules and regulations of Municipal Code. Unless they show up with new evidence on Tuesday, they have not filled their burden of proof.

Cannabis shops have supplied over $750K in the City's Children's Fund via taxes which will be available to Children's groups in 2025-2026. I think it is obvious but worth noting that these taxes will continue to improve our community and more shops will only be a benefit.

I ask that you adopt the resolution denying the appeal and uphold the Planning Commision decision to approve the Use Permit for The Hook.

Thank you for your time.

Jessi
--
Jessi K. Bond
831-239-0780
2 Rosemary Balsley
From: dan seaseep.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 12:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: WAMM Dispensary suppport from a resident of the West Side Dear Santa Cruz City Council,
I don't smoke marijuana and I'm not a big fan of legalization, but I am writing you to urge you to vote against the appeal to, and in favor of, WAMM's proposed marijuana dispensary at Mission & Laurel (the former Emily's bakery).

We live on the West Side of Santa Cruz, and have had kids go through both Mission Hill Middle School & Santa Cruz High; our kids walked to school regularly. I also commute from the Westlake neighborhood to my office on Center Street overlooking the Scott Kennedy soccer fields, so I go past this intersection twice a day.

While I appreciate Superintendent Munro's concerns, I rarely see students at this intersection. There are far more students that use Walnut & Mission.

Her concern about normalization are valid, but this pertains to the entire industry and our state, and does not specifically relate to the proposed location.

My support is for the process, and following the rules. WAMM and their partner have assiduously done this, and I agree with State Senator John Laird & Assemblymember Gail Pellerin that to deny the dispensary application now would be "moving the goal posts". The proposed dispensary follows all city guidelines and has the approval of the Planning Department & the Planning Commission.

WAMM is a strong member of our Santa Cruz community, and has been and continues to be a resource for those who are suffering.

Please deny the appeal, and approve WAMM & their partner's dispensary application for the former Emily's Bakery location.

Respectfully submitted,
-Dan "Dangerous Dan" Orange
120 Rulofson St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95060
p.s.: the one thing I'd request is that the City Council politely request that the dispensary retain the sign painted on the glass above the door, "Relax! You have plenty of time!" In New York City a couple of decades ago I saw a coffee shop with a sign over it that said, "Relax! You're already late", and I realized these 2 signs were perfect encapsulations of their communities.

Dan Orange
3 831-277-7217
4 Rosemary Balsley
From: Pat Emard <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 12:52 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Dispensary vote
Hi,
I was treated by Valerie Corral during my stint with breast cancer in 2013-2015 when she provided services for medical marijuana patients in Santa Cruz. Valerie is one of the most caring, careful, and generous people I have ever known, generous with her time, her incredible knowledge about marijuana, and her resources. At that time she was providing many very poor patients with very low cost treatment and clearly did not benefit financially from her work.

Please approve the dispensary she wants to open in Santa Cruz. She is the only one I trust to provide accurate and clear information regarding the use of marijuana for pain, nausea, and sleep.

Thank you, Pat Emard
Sent from my iPad
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Natasha Varner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 1:14 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Letter of support for The Hook dispensary at 1129 Mission St Santa Cruz City Council,
I'm still shocked that the legality of the new Hook dispensary is even being questioned. Not only have the owners gone above and beyond to make sure the location complied with every single law in place, but they met with school reps very early on to discuss concerns, changed the entire look of their proposed building, agreed to not advertise with signs on site, and even won't sell to legal MMJ cardholders who are 18 (even though this isn't fair to an 18 year old who might actually need their medicine). The time to prevent a dispensary from opening in this location has passed, it was heavily debated when the rules were decided on years ago with legalization. Denying this dispensary, and the very important partnership with WAMM, would negatively impact so many medical patients, and effectively confirm only 4 dispensaries are allowed within city limits instead of 5, but also will call into question the legality of the other already existing dispensaries. There isn't another area within city limits where another dispensary could open, the location rules are so strict, but still were previously agreed upon. Denying The Hook it's application would also call into question all other rules around the locations of other types of businesses (non cannabis) in the future, this means no business owner could make plans based on current rules because in the end the city could change the rules at any moment on a whim. Anyone looking at the current guidelines set in place years ago for new dispensaries could see that this general area is the last remaining spot in town - again, clearly a dispensary would open there eventually, so if anyone was concerned about this, they had their chance to voice it back then.

And just a side note, the city/community should be thrilled to know that The Hook is the proposed dispensary to open. This business is one of the most friendly, helpful, and affordable dispensaries I've ever found. They've never had any incidents, violations, or legal issues in all these years, and even have the support of police. Since the opening of the Capitola location several years ago, my mom and I have almost exclusively shopped there for our medicine (I'm 38, disabled, and suffer severe chronic pain, migraines, and insomnia, and my mom is 73 and suffers from pain and insomnia as well). I always thought that I would never have to worry about losing access to my medicine since I'm lucky to live not only in CA, but in Santa Cruz. But now I'm very disappointed that this conversation about the new dispensary has turned into arguments referencing various myths and outdated stigmas (which hurts a lot), instead of just following the guidelines that were debated and set when Cannabis was first legalized here.

Please approve the Hook's application and ensure WAMM is protected as well.

Thank you for your time and for listening to my comments and concerns.

Natasha
(I used to live in District 3 for 3 years, District 1 for over 5 years, and graduated from UCSC, but now I'm just outside of city limits on Capitola Rd, however, this still affects my life and medical needs.) 2 Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
3 Rosemary Balsley
From: Elaine Bailey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 1:18 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Dispensary at Former Emily's Bakery
Dear City Council,
Please allow the dispensary on Mission St. to open per current regulations. It is the right and compassionate path forward. Its location is central for those most in need.

Sincerely,
Elaine Means
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Doug Engfer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 1:36 PM
To: Fred Keeley; City Council
Subject: Council Item 25, 14 May 2024 (dispensary appeal) Mayor Keeley and Members of Council –

We write today to express our support for The Hook and WAMM’s efforts to establish a cannabis retail facility at 1129 Mission St (previously Emily’s), and to oppose the appeal of the Planning Commission’s previous approval of same.

Law, facts, or table – what one pounds in a dispute is determined by the strengths of one’s argument. In this case, both the law and the facts support denying the appeal, and allowing the applicants to move forward with the proposed development.

As regards the law, the application is fully compliant with state and local codes, including distance requirements, etc. The applicants have worked diligently, within the City’s system, to gain necessary permits and approvals. Denying them the opportunity to do business at this location amounts to moving the goalposts, which would be poor governance.

As regards the facts, again the applicant holds the strong hand – local law enforcement has no objections based on their documented experience: dispensaries do not sell to minors. And, the applicant has voluntarily raised the minimum age for obtaining medical cannabis above statute, to 19, in order to assuage concerns regarding student access. This dispensary will not encourage under-age or inappropriate cannabis use.

Thus, the appellants are left to pound the table, putting forth emotional appeals and anecdotes.

The path forward seems clear to us: Council must deny this appeal and approve this development – it’s not a close call. In fact, this item provides Council with a rare opportunity to do well by simply allowing a cherished local enterprise, WAMM, to continue to do good.

We urge Council to deny this appeal.

Robin and Doug Engfer
Santa Cruz
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 2:12 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Tomorrow's vote on the Hook dispensary
HelloI am totally in support of the Hook dispensary that is trying to open on Mission Street.

As a patron of their 41st avenue shop, I want to report that they have the best prices in town, and I am wondering if the other higher-priced shops are trying to undermine the competition. I am really tired of having to drive all the way to 41st avenue, couldn’t the city benefit from the tax revenue? I have owned my house on the west side since 1982 and have been running a small business here since 2005. I’ll vote against the entire existing city council if this dispensary is prevented from opening, because it’s being opposed by only a few groups with questionable motives.

Regards
Teri Morris

TERI MORRIS, OWNER
Peyton Street Pens
www.peytonstreetpens.com
2 Rosemary Balsley
From: steve adams <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 2:15 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Wamm testimonial
I am honored to share the remarkable story of my son, Ryan, and his battle with testicular cancer.

Approximately 19 years ago, Ryan underwent extensive treatment at prestigious medical centers like Sloan Kettering in NYC. Despite their best efforts, a particularly precarious tumor persisted, challenging the medical experts at Sloan Kettering, MD Anderson, UCSF, and UCLA.

In a moment of desperation and determination, Ryan delved into alternative cancer treatments and discovered a beacon of hope - Wamm. Upon learning about "Rick Simpson oil" and the potential of CBD in shrinking tumors, Ryan turned to Wamm for guidance and support. With their assistance, Ryan embarked on a regimen that involved using CBD oil.

The results were nothing short of miraculous. After just a month of treatment, a follow-up scan revealed a significant reduction in the tumor's size. Astonished, the doctors at Sloan Kettering inquired about Ryan's breakthrough, which he attributed to CBD treatment. Their response, albeit subtle, reinforced the effectiveness of the approach - "keep doing what you're doing." Ryan's journey with Wamm is a testament to his unwavering determination and the transformative impact of their support. Despite not being a recreational cannabis user, Ryan's dependence on CBD oil for survival underscores the life-saving potential of alternative treatments provided by Wamm.

I am genuinely grateful for Wamm's role in Ryan's life, offering hope, support, and a lifeline in the face of adversity. Advocating for Wamm is a privilege and a duty, knowing the invaluable contribution they have made to Ryan's ongoing battle against cancer.

Thank you, Wamm, for being a beacon of light in our darkest hours and standing by us through every step of this challenging journey.

Steve Adams
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Carolyn Rudolph <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 2:57 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Dispensary Mission St
Honorable Santa Cruz City Council members,
I strongly urge all of you to keep the approval for the dispensary on Mission. It would be highly unethical to change the approval at this point in time. As a member of the neighborhood, I do not understand the complaint of parents, since I have never seen kids at this location. This is a service for ill and low income members of our community and needs to be honor.

Sincerely,
Carolyn Rudolph
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Denise Varner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 3:25 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Hook/WAAM Dispensary on the Westside
Attn. Santa Cruz City Council:

I am writing in support of the application by the Hook and WAAM for a new dispensary location on the Westside. This business meets and exceeds the requirements for a dispensary in that area, and has more than complied with additional requests by the school board and city. They provided an eloquent, passionate, and professional presentation to the Planning Commission already, which was backed by sound research and supported by many members of the community, including police, educators, neighbors, and medical patients. This was in stark contrast to those who spoke in opposition who were citing outdated information, stigmatizing cannabis use, and attempting to change rules that were already in place.

It is inconceivable that this business is still having to prove themselves fit to open. I am a senior citizen, a UCSC employee, and a medical patient. I live just outside the city limits, but frequent businesses within the city.

I hope you will consider and approve the Hook's application and ensure WAMM is protected as well.

Thank you for your time and for listening to my comments and concerns.

Sincerely,
Denise
2 Rosemary Balsley
From: Tom Langan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 3:25 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please vote in favor of WAMM
Dear council members,
I am writing today to urge you to please vote in favor of the WAMM dispensary at the old Emily's Bakery site. WAMM has been benefiting our community for 30 years, and they reflect our shared values of compassion and care. I understand the anxieties of Superintendent Kris Munro. But the way to teach, help, and nurture our youth is not by denying care to others.

Sincerely,
Thomas and Paweena Langan
Santa Cruz Residents district 2
3 Rosemary Balsley
From: Lira Filippini <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 3:41 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 25; WAMM Dispensary
Dear Mayor Keeley and Council Elect,
I write to you today with concern about what denying WAMM's ability to open at this location signals to our society, as well as to our youth.

A cascade of letters have already made it clear that our community values WAMM and wishes to see them able to move forward at this location -- a location they were told by Planning Staff would have no issues -- the location they have now poured ALL of their funds into.

This includes a lengthy Op-Ed in support of WAMM opening at this location by Senator John Laird, as well as officially submitted written comment by our District 28 Congresswoman Gail Pellerin. I also find it interesting to note that both Gary Patton and Don Lane signed onto Congresswoman Pellerin's letter, showing that forces who are often in opposition about local planning matters are strongly in agreement in their support of WAMM at this location.

I hear and truly understand what is driving the concern of those in support of the appeal. Normalizing recreational cannabis in our youth is problematic and already rampant in our society; and it's important to recognize that this is not what WAMM at this location would do. Look at this concern from a different perspective. Only five dispensaries are allowed in the City of Santa Cruz. If WAMM is allowed to open in partnership with the Hook at this location, the last dispensary slot available will be filled by this cherished organization, allowing them to continue their compassionate care of seriously ill people who actually need cannabis medically, and who need help affording it. This would signal that we support Medical Cannabis and help facilitate compassionate care.

If WAMM dies because they can't recoup the investment they've put into the location where you disallow them to open, it would mean the fifth/last dispensary slot available in the City will likely end up going to another recreational marijuana business instead of WAMM. What does that signal to our society? What does that signal to our youth?
I strongly believe that it's critically important for our youth to be exposed to the medical and compassionate care side of the cannabis industry -- to the historical fight for it as a legal right -- to what amounts to a pivotal legacy created by WAMM and the City of Santa Cruz, historically working together to make that happen.

Exposing our youth to THIS SIDE of the cannabis industry is exactly what we need to restore a little balance in a world in which they are exposed to endless recreational drug paraphernalia through the media and social media -- where the black-market availability is super easy for them to access (unlike at legitimate cannabis stores that actually scan/verify ID's, not just look at them -- unlike bars). 4 Let's face it -- they're already extremely exposed and substances are extremely easy for them to find black-market. It's imperative our youth are exposed to the compassionate care, medical side of this industry and its history as well. Let's restore a little balance, while doing the right thing for WAMM and the critically ill who rely on them.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration,
Lira Filippini
130 Belvedere Terrace
Santa Cruz, CA
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bryce Berryessa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 4:35 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Bonnie Bush; Ryan Bane; Valerie Leveroni Corral; Kyle Giorchino Subject: Petition of Support WAMM Phytotherapies | Hook Outlet Attachments: support-wamm-a-champion-of-medical-cannabis-access-and-community-safety-in-santa-cruz.pdf Dear City Council,
Please see the attached petition of support for the dispensary project at 1129 Mission St. Signed by 2169 Constituents.

Thank you for your consideration,
Bryce Berryessa
Support WAMM, a Champion of Medical Cannabis Access and Community Safety in Santa Cruz
To: City Council | The City of Santa Cruz
To the Honorable Members of the Santa Cruz City Council, We, the undersigned residents and supporters of Santa Cruz, come together to voice our strong support for the proposed WAMM Phytotherapies (WAMM) and The Hook dispensary at 1129 Mission St. This initiative represents more than just a business proposal; it is a commitment to compassionate care and community wellness which provides WAMM a compliant location to serve westside medical cannabis patients as they have for over 30 years in our community. Federal Court Judge Jeremy Fogel described WAMM (Phytotherapies) as "the gold standard of the medical marijuana movement.”
Background:

WAMM has a long-standing history of providing compassionate care to those in need, offering therapeutic-quality, regeneratively-grown cannabis products to chronic and terminally ill patients.

Their operating partner, The Hook has demonstrated a commitment to responsible retail operations, community education, and the prevention of underage access. Together, they propose to establish a dispensary that upholds the highest standards of community service and compliance with an unwavering goal to Continue WAMM's legacy of compassionate care by providing free medical cannabis to their members. Offer legal access to affordable, tested, cannabis products for the community and Combat the black market with competitive pricing that incentivizes people to choose legal, regulated products.

Community Benefits:

Health and Wellness: Expanding access to medicinal cannabis for patients in need, supporting physical and mental health in our community.

Economic Impact: Creating jobs and generating tax revenue that can be reinvested in local services and infrastructure.

Education and Prevention: Implementing robust education programs about safe cannabis use, contributing to a well-informed community.

Regulatory Compliance: Adhering to all local zoning, setbacks, and city laws, ensuring a safe and regulated environment.

Established Precedent: The proposed project aligns with existing standards for operational dispensaries, which have successfully integrated into the community without incident, demonstrating responsible business practices.

Addressing Concerns:

We acknowledge the concerns raised by some community members and affirm that the proposed location exceeds the required setbacks from schools, with measures in place to prevent visibility and access by minors. Furthermore, studies and data from reputable sources, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Medical Association, indicate that regulated dispensaries do not increase youth cannabis use or community safety risks. While we agree we as a community need to work together toward educating and discouraging our youth from substance use, there is no evidence supporting claims that legal dispensaries are providing access to minors or encouraging their use. There has not been a single incident of a dispensary marketing to or transacting unauthorized sales in the county, as confirmed by the Santa Cruz Police Department and the County Cannabis Licensing Department.

Call to Action:

We call upon the Santa Cruz City Council to acknowledge the significant community backing for the proposed dispensary at 1129 Mission St. With over 70% of Santa Cruz voters supporting Proposition 64, our community has clearly voiced its approval for regulated cannabis. By greenlighting this project, the Council will not only honor the wishes of its constituents but also uphold a tradition of regulating and overseeing cannabis businesses that have consistently demonstrated safety, reliability, and a commitment to the community.

In conclusion, we earnestly appeal for the City Council's positive endorsement of this proposal.

Such an action would embody the democratic principles and community ethos that Santa Cruz is known for, while further supporting WAMM's invaluable contributions to our community. Let's move forward together, championing health, education, and responsible access to cannabis.

Supporting research can be accessed here: Research
The project, a collaborative effort between WAMM Phytotherapies and The Hook, stands at the forefront of compliance with the city's legal frameworks, zoning regulations, and established setbacks from schools. Despite being fully compliant, it faces significant opposition from the school board, which has embarked on a campaign to thwart its development. The board's push for a 2000ft buffer between dispensaries and child-centric areas such as schools and parks would effectively impose a de facto ban, eliminating all parcels currently eligible for cannabis business operations within the city. This proposed buffer would render the four dispensaries that are currently operating in the city ineligible under the new criteria, despite the absence of evidence suggesting that legal dispensaries contribute to underage cannabis access.

The potential success of this opposition threatens not only the project but also the broader community fabric. It jeopardizes the contributions of two organizations that have been pillars of service in Santa Cruz, adhering strictly to all existing legal standards and regulations. The imposition of such restrictive measures would contradict the community’s values, overlook the democratic processes that have legalized cannabis, and negate the positive impacts these organizations have made. At its heart, this partnership between WAMM Phytotherapies and The Hook promotes responsible cannabis access, prioritizing education and the well-being of the Santa Cruz community, in line with the city's progressive and health-conscious ethos.

Signed by 2,169 people:

Name Zip code
Bryce Berryessa 95076
David Volkland 95010-3555
Rachel Fihn 95010
Jenna Gallant 95003
Cesar Ramirez 95003
Justin Benson 95003
Bijan Sakaki 84103
Samara Esposito 95060
Bayley Logan 95073
Nicholas Griffith 95472
Tamara Keller 95060
Joshua Logan 95073
Melody Grandell 95076
Joshua Krane 91601
Daniel Finkelstein 95060
Name Zip code
Benjamin Slome 10013
Amanda Curtis 95076
Joseph Andreae 92646
Jigar Patel 95472
Jason Osmanski 95060
Karen Lockwood 95005
Johnny Suire 95010
Ann Thomas 95062
Jesse Roseman 95062
Sadie Williams 95060
Rudy Campos 91776
Scott Berryesss 84043
Josh Schmidt 95828
LC Giovanni
Tognazzini
95010
Eric Paulin 96150
Mer Barko 91406
Talia Anders 95060
Genoa Brown 95060
Vanessa Vazquez 95012
Tammy Meck 95065
McKenna Maness 95018
Kyle Giorchino 95003
Laura Jones 95060
Thomas Pedersen 95060
Stuart Carlson 93955
Carly Pick 80303
Penny

HARRINGTON
80526
Nathan
Blackmore
95060
MOLLY JUDD 95018
Alex Redding 95843
Corina Lee 95060
Name Zip code
Lauren McCarthy 94517
Lisa Ferrone 95060
Thomas Jones 95060
Kenny Morrison 90291
Jane Sooby 95060
Chelsea Douglas 95010
Jeffrey Raber 91016
Savannah Hunter 97405
Brynn Raber 90275
Rob Marani 95003
Matthew Chiu 95436
Jannet C 95060
Christopher Carr 95060
Dirk Voss 92240
Eric Hara 96976
Alexander bafia 95060
Asha Tobing 95060
Gavin Kogan 93923
mark drobac 95060
Cethin Stanford 93940
AMY Jones 95073
Mary Thurston 95678
Chris Stover 94103-2813
Joshua Wurzer 95060
Valerie A Leveroni
Corral
95060
James Waggoner 95076
Molly Voigt 80524
Tim Smith 95062
Aimee Grimes 95843
Rielly Brooks 91505
Steve Adams 95076
Tristan Hara 95060
Name Zip code
Collin Lam 94121
Chelby Dufourg 90048
Danielle singh 95076
Holly Blackney 95628
christian martin 95060
RACHEL BARNES 95060
Daniel Quinn 95060
Russel Wilenkin 90045
Phoenyx N 95060
Faby Felix 95003
Andrea (Dre)
Hudson
92882
Jamie Schultze 95073
Darren Story 950769713
michelle bastyr 55403
Ethan Russo, MD 98070
Lupe Montano 95019
Robert Leith 34477
Aj Baddley 90046
Jennifer Cohan 80540
Joshua Mezher 94601
Rick Blackney 95628
Jordan Guzzardo 92879
John Ramsey 28409
Craig Pagano 95017
Joshua Schiffman 84108
Kristina Calvert 95816
Daniel Steigman 94117
Lesley Nickus 92865
Arturo Ayala 95060
Chris Dunn 97405
Kenneth Churchill 92270
Kalle Snyder 95138
Name Zip code
Marcus Martinez 95073
Rita Green 95060
Larry Goldfarb 95062
Sarah Martin 95003
Jaymie Kushi 95060
Lesley-Reid
Harrison
95073
David Talley 94080
Amalia LugoFuentes95062
Gloria Martinez 95008
Daniel Weisberg 94947
wendy Ostrow 95062
John Vitale 95060
Cortland Peterson 95060
Jay Maisey 95003
Marcus
Richardson
90210
Sara Badillo 95020
Rosemarie Yamat 95033-8261
Cortland Peterson 95060
Kaya Johnson 95949
Matthew Johnson 95018
Vanessa Black 95060
Jeff Angell 95006
Thomas
Flinchbaugh
95005
Alejandra
Hurtado
95076
Marilu Cano 95076
Jill Smith 95062
Jason Matthys 95466
Damian Wyzga 95060
Ismael Valladares 95062
Name Zip code
Ryan
Hollingsworth
83705
Robert Jackson 95006
Jason Hdez 95062
Larry Wells 95062
Demetrius A
Daniels
95470
Denny Dicecco 95076
Janeen Simmons 95018
Luna Stower 94577
Carol Hawkins 94513
Ashley Palma 93906
Terry Sardinas 95003
John Palka 95066
Brian Applegarth 92234
Julie Radu 95008
David Doriot 95076
Linda Cover 96060
Tyler Blackney 95816
Brenda
Armstrong
95018
Samuel De La Paz 95472
Jeremy Zachary 92807
Mark Luciano
Ainsworth
94403
Stephanie
Kimitsuka
95062
Dana Martinez 95949
Linda Getz 95060
Heather
Willoughby
95060
Suzanne Lerner 95003
Micah Anderson 92037
Corey Kite 95060
Kevin Wilson 95490
Name Zip code
Robin Macon 95060
erin ames 95138
Doobie Lopez 95060
Don Wirtshafter 45735
Frank Eddy 94608
Suzanne Pfeil 95060
Gerardo Gil 84319
Heather Haglund 94590
Nicholas Blas 95060
Richard Johnson 94102
Michelle Regala 95415
Nick Martinez 95008
Josh Rosenthal 90212
Miguel Chable 92262
Zach Burger 95482
Jurij Kokolskyj 95062
Eddie gomez 95076
Graham Farrar 93109
Mikki Norris 94803
Mark Garver 95018
Gary Poland 95006
Susan Bungay 95628
Brooke Rosel 78217
Amanda GriffinSnyder95138
Max Poswillo 93465
Marielle Basseri 94954
Matt Yount 90504
Rowan Heynes 94087
Arnold Leff 95006
Jack Licursi 95116
Lisa Flynn 95018
Elizabeth Vincent 23452
Name Zip code
Ned Fussell 95472
Jeni D'Aprile 92115
Brandon Rexroad 92649
Valerie Sky 95018
Cheryl Griffin 95138
Jorge B 95060
michael jolson 95060
Stacy Cronk 95003
Robert Orrizzi 95062
Robyn Caywood 95945
Charles Griffin 95138
Michael Small 11730
Alex Daryanani 94511
Deborah
Silverknight
32208
Brandon Vigil 94551
Walia Stone 95060
John Justice 95010
Alexia Jimenez 95076
Sandy
Oppenheim
95005
Liam Cronan 95060
Brandy Hansen 95064
George Rocha 95076
Olivia Crago 95003
Cindy Arent 95003
Mariah
Goncharoff
95060
Misty Booth 95062
Rebecka Hawkins 95003
Rusty Olson 95062
Emily Resnick 90266
Zachary
Woodford
95060
Name Zip code
Gary Herman 95062
James Borawski 95457
Katie Brunius 94762

SHY ANN
Kenwood
95076
shani heckman 94110
Richard Veil 95062
Nikkal Jade Gregg 95076
Sophia GuzmanEvans95073
Quentin Johnston 94303
Rene Ochoa 95060
She’aShaunna
Egling
95063
Ishqa Hillman 90804
Frank Eddy 94608
Moi Galvan 95076
Lindsay Williams 95010
Scott Akrop 95062
Juliette Tocco 95060
Natalie Beck 95064
Oscar Munoz 93907
Gerardo Perez 95012
Natasha Varner 95062
Angelina Miranda 95018
Matt Smith 95006
Danielle Irby 95017
Benedict Lubbon 90277
Kaitlyn
Sanclemente
95010
Remy Jaquez III 95076
Morgan McCreary 95060
Tania Manning 94549
Roderick Johnson 95062
Name Zip code
Lori Hennings 95003
Silvia Ayala 95060
Denise Varner 95062
Ekua Omosupe 95076
Xavier Rodriguez 95019
Linda Tillery 95019
Jennifer CameronSanclemente95010
Jacob Padgitt 95010
Wade Laughter 95959
RICHARD RASA 96094
Amy Barnes 97703
Tina Gomez 95003
Taylor Burdick 95060
Annabella
Sakasai
95060
Haley Nelson 94559
Eric Eggleton 07960
Felicia Andreani 91746
Mariann Ybarra
Williamson
95060
John Grady 95073
Mandy Mohler 95065
Samantha
Stafford
92024
Lacy Caryl 94553
Ben W 94541
Anastasia Welch 95018
Jill Combs 95062
Brandon Hunt 95060
Joan Agostinelli 95060
Carlile Ellis 95062
Jasiah leverenz 95003
Amelia
Scamporrino
95062
Name Zip code
David Hua 94103
Samantha Brown 95073
Vidal MedinaNaranjo95076
Christina bullard 90008
Jeremy Lopez 93420
Annamarie
Caldero
95315
Natalie Corwin 95476

GABRIELLE

FAVREAU
95060
Freeborn Ofiongor 95060
Lisa Matson 95076
Lindsey Hickox 95076
Talula Peterman 95060
Misty Salcedo 95060
Sheila Dedenbach 95765
Ashley Gregory 95062
James Scott 95037
Jacob Salk 94705
makenna
sandidge
95062
Jason Beck 90016
Abigaile
Luckenbach
95065
Mike Elkin 90210
Connie Sands 92129
Octavia Veeder 94610
Brett Colombini 95448
Adam Meyn 90731
Chrissy Varni 95076
Stephen Dorris 96708
Daniel Wacks 94610
Francesca Maina 02840
Adam Barrow 90048
Name Zip code
Lydia West 95062
Emily Reilly 95060
Stacey Muller 95076
Thomas Frye 95076
Sean Williams 95060
Maddy Couvillion 95073
Stephen Taylor 95060
Mark Loving 95060
Erik Thoresen 80304
Jaïr Velleman 90210
Michelle Nicely 95060
Monica Pantinas 95401
Jaymes P 95076
Sarah Rise 95060
Kristian
Andreassen
95949
DAVE KIM 92260
Jan McGeorge 95062
Miles Pless 93036
melissa Carrillo 95060
Kyle Bishop 95060
Daniel Feldman 95060
iesha espinoza 95076
Tyler Kahn 95073
Kyle Remenda 95064
Mary Reynolds 95060
Michael Gruber 60062
Marsea MarcusRotman96753
Sean Kelley 95442
Nancy A
Armstrong
95006
Shane Terry 89104
Erin Gore 95448
Name Zip code
Heather Molloy 10708
David Belsky 90274
Robert Mendola 94115
Max Rudsten 94939
Noah Ortega 95111
Ed Rust 95060
Tamar Maritz 92692
Jamie L Pearson 95064
Gregory Beebe 95003
Josh Bubeck 92110
Blake Ramos 80547
Kristie Wilson 95010
Sydney Ferris 95065
Isabelle Sjahsam 94118
AnnaRae
Grabstein
94951
Aaron Veatch 95814
William Casper 95060
Eric Pearl 95062
Megan Warden 90015
Brennan Craig 95062
Los Arias 92009
Michael Siegel 93023
Amber Roccaforte 95073
Mario Guzman 90291
Jordana Fischer 95060
Jay Evans 95060
Adam Salman 33181
Brian Malin 95959
Amanda Hoschke 95060
Shinae Lee 94110
Justin Boyens 95060
Avraham Sinai 95062
Name Zip code
Eric Durkee 95060
Amber Fields 95073
paola anderson 92656
Christian Kaiser 95066
Jennifer Glickman 95401
Brandon Levine 94931
Leah DiBiccari 95001
Tom Cole 95062
Chelsea guzman 95062
Seth Yakatan 90267
Joshua Bushnell 95050
Inger Airheart 90292
Sophia Pless 93036
Ana Manzella 95060
sabine freudiger 94062
Keith Healy 94920
Rafa Sonnenfeld 95060
Byron Wouk 95062
William Muecke 94133
Claudio Miranda 94606
Anne Boutelle 95060
Maria Alfaro 95073
Michele Pruce 77019
Michael
Steinmetz
94123
Heather Cruz 95005
Charlene Estrada 91406
William McKenzie 94804
Scout Selby 95065
Cara Favilla 95060
Jeff Rick 95060
Chris Smith 95060
Zed Clark 44610
Name Zip code
Emily Paxhia 94117
Michael Citron 00901
Emily Fontana 95060
Ritika Aggarwal 94618
Gunnar
Amundson
95060
Siddarth Gupta 10069
Jeffrey Schultz 11576
Julian Felipe
Barboza
10904
Dan Herer 91367
Kevin Brooks 95746
Lisa Williams 75071
Julie Aguiar 95060
Joe Williams 95062
Mari Oxenberg 91364
Max Simon 93022
Sophia Alarcon 95018
Eluteria Gutierrez 95076
Jared Cohen 90265
Dane Diseth
Chandra
90064
drayton
stephenson
92285
Jim Anstey 90210
Marc Montoya 90250
Adam Graham 80206
Joshua Holdridge 83704
Kieve Huffman 90066
Nanci Ryker-Judd 95018
Morgan Paxhia 92101
Matt
Krishnamachari
95060
Rosie Mattio 07624
Dani Walton 94605
Name Zip code
Michael Beaudry 93109
Scott Parks 94952
Tim Nester 95062
Anne Benveniste 95018
Ronald Tate 33409
Yarrow Kubrin 95473
Shereé Semonich 90803
Lydia Gomez 95018
Tahira
Rehmatullah
10003
Clayton Taylor 95403
George
Vasilopoulos
80033
Erik Ott 94952
Madeline Rons 95062
Rachael Shelton 95062
Aj Culp 95060
Joseph Bryan 95060
Betsy K 90035
Doug Huskey 95060
Pete Rabbitt 95066
Duffy Barrett 95003
Gwenviere
Benjamin
95062
Richard Wang 95006
John Lamb 95062
Danielle Koepke 95076
John Cutler 95060
Bella Brown 95003
Scott Jennings 90266
Scott Brown 95093
Bob Lamonica 95060
Heidi Ferreira 95046
ben kane 08540
Name Zip code
Tony Ferreira 95020
Lucas McCann 10013
Amanda Harris
Altice
95064
Anthony Gonzales 93940
Noah Hamman 20814
Doug McPhie 95073
Mark Messa 95033
Josh Bowers 95490
Hunter Nichols 95060
Bejay Strout 95003
Ashley Elguea 95127
Caroline Perretta 95062
Justina Marquez 95023
Eric Battuello 95403
Marilee Werfhorst 95010
Joyce Cenali 94112
Cathy Gideon 95066
Jackson Kellard 90292
Jason Hamed 95065
Barbara Paley 01238
Sera Passalaqua 94062
Allison Krongard 06840
suzanne wilson 95041
Chris Picardi 95062
Alessandra
Zamudio
95076
Austin Manierre 75201
Adam Taylor 95073
Sara Gibson 93003
Marilyn Headrick 94018
Desiree Garcia 95062
Ed Kilduff 90254
Name Zip code
Kyle Burnett 94520
Samy Sullivan 95076
Leialoha Cail 93101
Justin McIvor 95018
Pam Bailey 95005
Elizabeth Leopold 92688
ROB BOES 95060
Olga Lopez 90094
Dusty Fohs 95060

STEPHEN

MUCELLI
94533
Carter Lawyer 95065
Melody Litt 95060
Juan Aguilar 95023
Austin M 95060
Mark Boolootian 95062
Kevin Hix 93013
Jesse Meighan 91205
Leslie Maggetti 95060
Christina De La
Cruz
95060
Vanessa Holanda 95069
Ronnette Garcia 95062
Ron W 95061
John Chambers 93001
Michel Picard 95066
Jacob De La Cruz 95060
Ruth Coffin 95005
Maureen Rose 95066
Rob Lee 94011
Robert Rodriguez 95003
Brandon Diniz 95062
Phoenix Stephens
combs
95060
Name Zip code
Ruben Fuentes 95076
Marie Jauregui 95061
Kylen
Winterbotham
95003
Jackie a FitzhenryRussell95062
Adam Yader 95060
Sydney Price 98117
Karen Krenis 95060
Christopher
Balbach
95062
Miguel Campos 93012
Elana Tamas 11598
Zachary Brockett 92557
Vanessa Garcia 95060
Erin C 95018
Thomas Meade 92253
Seline Venzon 95630
Mark Merritt 95060
Stephanie Silva 95076
Jasmine Hayes 95060
Schuyler Rieger 95062
Keith Beaudoin 95003
Marv Anderson 95037
Ann Owens 93101
Su Tallarico 95073
moani adams 95060
Elizabeth Mabery 92504
Will Oquinn 93428
Steven Myrdahl 92882
Jadyn B 95060
Brian Hanhart 92804
Kaylee Olson 37062
Luke Olson 37062
Name Zip code
Beau Odom 91941
Adriana Rocha 95076
Brian Mas 95677
Jonathan Bookatz 91604
Angie Heredia 95076
Heidi McCoy 95060
Shane Ferrante 73159
Darrel Hallowell 92821
Chase Ferrante 92240
Kevin Parsells 85251
Rudy Fajardo 91745
Jeff Allgrove 95060
Michael Nagami 90056
Jonathan Dasig 95062
Bodian Roger 94134
Brian MacDonald 95060
John Stefenhagen 94706
Will Walker 95476
Aislyn Weinfeld 95062
Mike Wasmer 92037
Tiffany Watkins 95608
Elizabeth
Anderson
95123
Alexander Ayres 95060
Lynnette Shaw 94930
Shane Dooley 95062
Elizabeth
Warninger
95060
Jade Evan-Cruz 95060
Leslie Ingham 95066
Breana George 93950
Justin Burk 95076
Natalie Orendain 95066
Name Zip code
Mitchell Ayres 95060
Brian Ayres 95060
Rayette Andrews 95003
Lee Reinheimer 95003
Helen Cobb 95401
Gracen Eiland 95062
Mack Hueber 13084
Laura Gossl 95062
Hector Gomez 95060
Marlene Movinski 95060
Lauren Riggins 94044
Michael Doten 94608
Jessica MacDevitt 95404
Brittany Hodges 91605
Eric Schneider 11758
Rhea Hunter 95010
Garrett Richard 95062
Lucy Blackney 94558
Julia Ryan 95062
Don Olufs 95492-9570
Ysabella Donlan 95062
Coral KamstraBrown95062
Melissa
Sutherland
95010
Kerri Accardi 85381
Jackie
Christensen
95060
Samantha
Eccleston
95062
Jj Lemmon 95060
Adelia Carrillo 85338
Jazmine Shepherd 89102
Rosa Avitia 95822
Name Zip code
Dyan Nelms 95076
Coltin Barody 92532
Kirstie Price 95073
William Panda
Pauley
84093
Erin Wood 95060
Danielle Hargate 92260
Zac Mathieu 95542
Gloria Navarro 92626
Clem Peterson 94606
Elizabeth
Maushardt
95065
Adrian Giovenco 94708
Blair Sass 95018
Jake Kuczeruk 90026
Nate Ready 95060
Molly Waite 95003
Nicole Lopez 95076
Sjusan Zachary 93277
Alyssa Flowers 95060
Rehanna Pacheco 92780
Melissa Jamrus 95060
bailey renee 95076
Alec Dixon 95060
Rachel Heberly 95073
Ron Gershoni 94596
Kate Ransom 94117
Will Rudolphi 85050
Michele McDuff 94703
Sara Achenbach 95066
Aaron Newsom 95005
Christel McLean 94805
Ryan Brantley 95065
Name Zip code
Daeja Boggiano 95060
Kiera Gross 95060
Adam Wells 95010
Alsn Dawson 95073
Leslie Evans 95628
Emma Moses
Graue
95062
Rocco Diaz 95062
Jamie Penilla 95062
John G 95060
Chris Ingram 95062
Socrates
Rosenfeld
95062
Jackson Brady 95006
Peter Tejera 90405
susan pratte 95060
Esmeralda
Sanchez
95076
Troy Godfrey 95003
Judith Yokel 95065
Walker Kellogg 95060
Ean O'Reilly 95004
Laura Wilcoxson 95005
Insook Kim 95003
Henry Merring 95018
Natasha Chiu 95436
Nicolette Serpa 95076
Gazelle Parsons 95060
Ana Esquivel 95076
Beth Stephens 55006
James Sclar 95005
Nina Stratton 95060
Katie Johnson 95062
P Reyes 94928
Name Zip code
Marina Stallworth 94605
Marisa Rosas 95403
Megan Stettner 95076
S L Coleman 95073
Robert Rosoff 94118
Ben Yokel 95065
Peter Keyes 95817
Amany Mata 93907
Dale Gieringer 94704-2527
Jose Villafana 95076
Weston Mossman 95060
John Bollaert 95060
Charlie Phillips 94306
Matthew Caraway 95005
Noemi Ibarra 95060
Evan Cicoletti 95060
Chase Hilleary 95062
Cesar Quintana 95076
Judy Durbin 95062
Armando Arias 95062
Laura Specht 93291
Ashley Picillo 10002
Lisa Swift 90041
David Swift 90041
Ben Garcia 94568
Ray Ferreira 93635
Laura SAAVEDRA 93635
Emily Cervantes 95003
Rafael C. 95242
Austin Martindale 95010
Elise Seward 95926
Abigail VIEIRA 94609
Name Zip code
David Goldman 94114
Jenny Brancato 95060
Laura English 95076
Sacha Defoy 95062
Nancy Navarro 91016
Matt and Stacy
McMillan
95062
Alyssa Lonardo 95124
Vanessa Alvarado 95062
Joshua Hernandez 92058
Sarah Borgeson 95060
Jackie Cervantes 92083
Seattle Adams 95076
Katie DiGirolamo 95018
Cierra Daniels 94579
Roy Upton 95073
Marina Bleich 95060
Osiris Santiago 93905
Valerie Miller 95608
Muffin SpencerDevlin92651
Paula Gallant 19475
Teresa Young 95062
Katy Jones 95661
Sunny Winkleman 95062
Holly Johansen 95449
Laurel Hamm 95816
Shay Hubbard 95010
Rosy Weiser 95073-2550
Erika Hay 95073
Sami Weiser 95010
Amber R 95073
Brenda Lopez 95010
Name Zip code
Sofia Williams 90039
Ed Dickie 95017
Todd Marcus 92782
Christine Roberts 95060
Kailey Morgan 95030
Taylor Manning 95010
Leighann C 95003
Denise Nasaire 95076
Andree DiMaggio 85260
Christian Dean 95073
Derek Des
Champs
95060
Zach Granbery 95124
Kai Hoornbeck 95062
Loia Roth 95018
Valerie Phipps 95003
Jerod Riddle 95006
Benjamin Green 95060
Taylor Mezman 95073
Caitlin
Nascimento
95076
Michelle Wan 95014
Nicole H 96067
Victoria Miller 95060
Jase Earl 95060
Cynthia
TorresDuran
93907
Amber Engfer 95062
Lanny Swerdlow 92230
David Hyland 95039
Amanda Franklin 81601
Michael Kamp 95003
Michele DiMaggio 85710
Dai Smith 82225
Name Zip code
Rosalynn Garza 95076
Connor Bryant 95020
Lauren N 94608
Megan Atmavidya 90045
Anna Colbert 95062
Marlee Walker 95005
Kathryn Foster 95060
Chris Conrad 94803
Kyra Moura 93907
Elise McDonough 95472
Fernanda Monroy 94567
Leo Krupnik 94002
Paul Stanford 97213
Jillian Lowry 32751
Evan Senn 28754
Janelle Bode 95003
Mo Alexander 95054
Billy Lardizabal 92562
Robert Bennett 95062
aliyah leilani 95125
Addie Culley 91602
Ethan Brown 95014
Amanda Pate 93561
Meggan Bahm 95407
norastine riley 94605
Tiffany Lewis 90038
Wendy Simonds 30306
Bevin Bell-Hall 11233
Erika rosendale 95076
Erica Tetsworth 92648
Jenny Heth 95062
Trevor Luxon 95062
Name Zip code
Marissa Pockat 95010
Sabrina Foraker 95076
Luis Lopez 95010
Kevin Barry 95120
Brittany Alberto 95077
Patrick Anderson 95407
C L 95008
Lynette Casper 95018
Chandler Escobar 95003
Radhika Kirkman 95060
Nick Drobac 95067
Abraham
Honegger
48910
Annie Sprinkle 95006
VyVy Nguyen 95926
Jay DiMeglio 19958
Rick Cook 95018
Tyler Grosdidier 95003
Kristin Foster 91325
Julia Rousseau 95076
Anna Griffith 95060
Valerie Atha 95062
chelsea Lucich 95401
Isabel Jimenez 95076
William Rose 95062
Chelsey
Earlywine
91354
Hayes Devaney 95060
Chester Malaza 95833
Angela Cervantes 95076
Alexandra Hook 95073
Kayleigh Smith 90805
Joseph Tampas 95003
Name Zip code
Jules Lefmann 95076
Elizabeth Upton 15217
Mark Jennings 10708
Katie Conley 95073
Gaylie Bell 95949
Joseph Meitzler 95076
Kian Sherer 95010
Julia Robledo 95112
Whitney Stone 93933
Jordan Layman 95060
Wendy Frances 95060
Beth Heynen 94085
Diana Cabanas 92805
Bryant Mejia 17603
Samantha F. 92610
Joel Freitas 95076
Shannon
McInerney
94112
Hardip Kalsi 95060
Marcos Vasquez 95076
Pepper St. Clair 93933
Jed Riffe 95060
Lincoln Brown 92651
Eric Essery 95076
Kari Moss 29678
Alan Lefebre 95060
Lizzy Albers 95073
Santiago Rios 95118
Duane Mory 95062
Kayla Gray 95010
Samantha Ash 95066
Christian Asa 95819
Allen Muhammad 94536
Name Zip code
Karina Garcia 95062
Autumn Silva 95062
shane modena 95003
Swen Tyler 95003
Kendra Stocking 90278
Jennifer Michaels 95409
Tovia Anderson 95003
Fred Gardner 94501
Tony Alvarez 95032
Nicole Powell 94704
Dave Saso 95076
Aundre Speciale 94516
Rebecca Olmos 95116
Nina Parks 94044
Nicole Kohen 90230
Sunev C 90019
angus schuurman 94945
Jennifer Vaughan 95076
Michael Daniel 95060
Emily McLaughry 95062
Shawn Grona 95062
Kandice Hawes 92610
monica agudelo 95076
Suzanne Wouk 95060-3645
Gabrielle
Gangitano
95060
Abigail Shaffer 95076
Adrienne
Menduno-Ortbals
95060
LINDA Davies 91950
Dan Parks 92677
Zane Wouk 95060
Manuel Yoro 95076
Name Zip code
Devon Squires 92653
Membrane Jones 95073
Susie Bright 95060
Cheryl Williams 95060
Michael McArdle 03827
Danny DeSmidt 94609
Kirstie Chadsey 94513
Dajana Z 90291
Callie Blackwell 30755
Antonio Sanborn 95003
Katherine
Mullarkey
12202
Thom Nelson 95060
Allison Feduccia 95062
Ivan Guillen 95076
Maya Loveland 95003
Laura Boys 95004
Muhammed
Mentese
96150
Jayne Butler 95062
Manndie Tingler 95661
Ashh sun 95076
Yasmina Porter 95060
Melanie Torres 95472
Izzie Witchel 95076
Ashley Wentworth 95050
Javiera Kostner 95060
Bart Goldstein 95073
Rob Learn 95076
Jocelyn Lozano 95060
Nakyan White 95060
Lauren Banks 95060
Patricia Prince 95003
Name Zip code
Peter Prince 95003
Karli Adams 95062
Scott Mohler 95065
Kat Park 95060
Oso Famoso 95005
David Brown 95006
Els Buts 95128
Sara Huntley 95060
Dwight Oden 95136
Micheal Scotttish 95076
Brad Bogus 94303
Leah Schwartz 95060
Alan Fischer 95060
Shin Light 95076
David
Bienenstock
95056
Sarah Godfrey 94801
John Paul
Gramelis
95060
Fred Della
Santina
95060
Tristan Gianelli 95010
Trinity Daniels 85303
Elena Ascaso 95010
Trinity Roseberry 85303
Annop
hongwathanachai
95076
Brad Hopper 95066
Amy Mayer 95073
Darcy Buckman 95066
Savanna Wright 95065
Chris Wang 95060
Sydney B 95062
Scott French 95065
Name Zip code
David Aquino 95076
Cassie Bos 95062
Christopher
Charlot
95060
Matthew Fauver 95465
Tim Leveroni 95926
heather leveroni 95926
Melissa MorenoEspinosa95060
Amanda Leveroni 95928
Madi Greco 93907
Fredericka Smith 95060
Peter Weiser 95060
Molly A Welch 95073
Diana Hodge 95060
Dhwani Sharma 95060
Lo Nunez 95073
Gerardo Alba 95076
Robert Braswell 93446
Brandon Yaeger 95060
Isabelle Goldstein 95060
Nuvia Brunner 95062
Kristen Hussey 95062
Joshua Kerr 95076
Jason Barry 95018
Briana OBrien 95062
Charlie Castillo 95060
Erick Becerril 95060
Leroy Martinez 95076
David Merg 92806
Carlos Lopez 95076
Lisa H 93517
Seth Brookshire 95926
Name Zip code
Chad DeGarmo 95019
Cici Reyes 93955
Joshlynn Meza 94085
Pete Gibson 97123
Raul Gacia 95060
Danielle Mc
Peters
94547
Diego Ramirez 95060
Cristina Ramirez 95060
Katelyn Tolbert 95062
Eddie Ramirez 95060
Andrew Headrick 95926
James durbin 95076
Mike Rebensdorf 95062
Jennifer Monroe 95060
Anthony Sanchez 95076
Diego Pena 95060
Monica Agudelo 95076
Barbara Duron 95060
Adam Prather 95065
Marina Malikoff 95061
Tiffany Devitt 95407
Eileen Holland 95076
Adrienne Perry 95062
Sam Dunbar 95060
Paige Hollis 95132
Lindsay Milam 95003
Ismael Mariscal 95076
Ashley Stegeman 95062
Alexander Bassi 94519
Jamison Maiden 95060
Oksana Bogatko 95073
Stephen Fuehrer 95062
Name Zip code
Erin Roberts 95062
Matt Wood 95073
Nancy Pierce 95060
Megan Prusynski 95401
T B 95073
sandra chavez 95004
Anna Orans 95062
Laura Greenfield 95060
Cesar Martinez 95076
Rebecca Rapp 95060
Erin Rhoades 95076
Alex Potter 95062
Erin Lee 95060
Krista Canton 95062
mario sanchez 95060
Brandon Damiani 95076
Mike Willigrod 95073
barry simpson 95001
Hawley Lopes 96150
Tom Kerr 95060
Danica Cirerol 95076
Storm Dannet 95073
Jamen Koos 92562
Michael Lozinski 95060
Heather Manus 92037
Clayton Treanor 95019
Nikki Davis 95033
Tony Fitzgerald 95062
Michael Sakellis 95060
Andrew Gruver 97219
Madonna Camel 95076-0538
Rashelle Winchell 95018
Name Zip code
Josh Aguayo 91942
Ellen Gallagher 95062
Lauren Saputelli 95060
Benjamin Fausto 93906
Brian Hart 95062
Scott Sokol 95062
Gabriella Mejia 95023
Justin Marroquin 95060
Kyle Boyar 92107
Jennifer Renteria 95076
Jeffrey Hickey 95062
Selina Reddan 92084
Stephanie A
Roman
95076
M Luke 98004
Aaron Salas 95076
Prema Drew 95062
Serena Watman 80421
Kimberly Sakellis 95060
rebecca kahan 95060
Diane Dobrin
Grunes
95062
Francisco
Berlanga
95076
Maricela
Gibson0p
95462
Jimmy Talavera 95023
Jocelyne Silva -
Rojas
95019
Brianna Yaeger 95060
Danielle Cruz 95018
Sara PayanPehrson94611
Devon Judd 95003
John Bradley 96019
Name Zip code
Sandra Ramirez 95060
Joshua Moran 93950
Sean Flynn 95060
Elisabet Stow 95066
Nina S 95060
Elysa Gaona 95076
Christopher
Bailey
95973
Timmia Elston 95019
Kellianne Frketic 15135
Melanie
Cervantes
95076
Timothy Kensit 95060
Jaime Ramirez 95060
Zoe Aquino 95076
Jenny Jacobo 93291
Leslie Calderoni 95066
Patrick Sullivan 95023
Emily Biagini-Lee 95076
Jared Soares 92028
Kimberly Gomes 95062
Rose Lachance 92065
Jose Rangel 95062
Tarah Taylor 95076
Joshua Baldwin 95076
Angela Bennett 32738
Johnette
Besseling
95060
Veronica Lopez 94533
Jessica Adams 80621
Sarah Armstrong 91362
James Moore 95928
Christine Zecker 01518
Elizabeth Villa 95023
Name Zip code
Julia Gamboa 95076
JC Ellington 97027
sean basalyga 94588
Sydney Slosarik 95124
Stephanie Rossi 80504
Christi Terpening 33146
Kyle Suess 95062
Megan Remington 95110
Ryan Osland 95076
Michelle Ouse 95003
Anna Cummins 95060
Tawnie
Scarborough
95060
R.L. Kincaid 78957
Juan Luis Achirica 95020
Leigh Erickson 95003
Catherine
Simonidis
95060
Alex AlvarezMilch95060
Danielle Sanchez 95076
Tiffany Thisner 95060
Jesse R 91710
Matt Barron 94920
Margaret Quigley 95060
Margo
Montgomery
95060
Rebecca Prete 95076
morgan fay 95060
Sarah Schilz 95076
brent nunn 95003
Juliana Marie 95063
Laurie Sage 95060
Jodi Morgan 95060
Name Zip code
Nicole Hill 95010
Trevor Tomlin 95060
Robert Briano 95004
Natalie Cresci 95010
William Campero 94122
Jaime Longoria 95060
Shannon Page 95060
robert adams 95062
Isabella Rich 95060
te’a shreves 95060
Angela Pih 90024
Barbara Segal 33020
Aly Rozek 80540
Sheila Stoller 95060
victor wright 95076
Luz Howse 95062
Vince Sottile 92694
Kirsten Velasco 60193
norman ayers 95076-0233
Lisa Dahlgren 95076
Joanna Regan 95060
Garrick Roshau 95116
Julie Esteban 95010
T Wiley 95076
Joellen Syth 95020-8218
Jukes F. 70964
Julia Greenspan 95060
Kathy Sparrow 95073
mari Z 95062
Robyn Middleton 95073
Roz Spafford 95062
Ethan Warner 95060
Name Zip code
Briana Jones 95020
Carlton Stewart 93940
Tim Beveridge 95062
Saskia Wade 95060
Katy Perez 95076
Douglass Gilbert 95062
christopher
bonita
95129
Tallulah Blount 91604
Ashley Valdivia 95076
Nicole Mazar 95041
Maria Valencia 95076
Heather Smetana 93955
Ian Davidson 95959
Maria Perez 95076
Michelle Aldrich 94123
Brandon
CárdenasGonzález
95076
Marcel Menard 95062
Andrea Sosa 95076
Bryan Price 80004
Gina Perry 95019
Alexsis Morga 93906
Mikaelah Martinez 95076
Keren Aylon 95062
yadhira holguin 95076
Madeline
Reynolds
95020
Doreen Marshall 95060
Philip D'Andrea 95076
Raijin Ko 95033
Brucecw Werder 95003
Anna Haukness 95010
Name Zip code
Daniel Guzman 95076-2161
Stephanie
Olmsted
95005
Kim Keane 95062
D Nunns 95063
Ted Lichtenberger 78702
Courtney Hughes 95073
James Bushneff 95010
Mari Medina 95062
Carol Hales 95062
Christopher
Rogers
95060
Jon Friesell 95073
Jason Seeber 95403-2841
Jimi Doss 95076
Spooky Ghost 95060
james huang 95060
Ariel DeGrace 95073
Jacob Otero 95076
Aure Robles 95076
Kristine Foster 95006
Adolfo Hernandez 95076
Chloe Cooper 95065
Lori Horton 95004
Yolanda Vazquez 95076
Jason Whipe 95062-2064
Davaryah
Trugman
95062-1708
Graham Sorkin 98282
Desiree Federico 95076
Daphne Contreras 95076
John Perry 95060
Michael Lawler 95010
Carmen Flores 95019
Name Zip code
Jordan White 95073
Rat Liz 95076
Max Nilsen 95060
Hunter Brawley 95018
Kyrie Diantonio 95060
marisol ramos 95003
Warren White 95073
Sheryl Varien 95060
Genise Swain 94930
Nina Martinez
Delgado
95020
Janene Zigman 95073
Michael Ellis 95005
Roman Ortiz 95076
Patricia Bennett 95003
Sarti Padgett 95065
Lisa Dewey 95112
James Mader 95032
Xotchil Herrera 95062
mayra plata 95076
Matt M Paynter 93955
Adriana Rocha 95076
Eden Crane 95003
Thea Serafin 95060
David Pinto 95060
Corey Debord 95007
Yesenia Guzman 95062
Lori Carbajal 93905
Bennie Thackeray 93449
Sara M 95032
Chandler S 95032
Deb Cacy 94538
Gilbert Moreno 95019
Name Zip code
teri morris 95060
Francine Byers 95073
Sharon Paight 95062
Steve Ornellas 95060
LaTishia Jones 95118
Donna Blase 95019
Jade Ismail 95062
Ravyn Bewley 95062
Miguel .OR 95076-5290
Bethsy Bobadilla 85076
Autumn Stevens 95062
Tai Danh 95060
Ruben Morfin 94303
Isabel Casillas 95076
Preston head 92651
Terry Bond 95062
Brad Freedman 92602
Erika Conrad 95076
Leslie Rojas 95076
Gregory Chin 94806
Lourdes Doss 90247
Salvador Sotelo
Romero
95020
Xavier Estrada 95076
Paul Schaafsma 95062
Meggan Stringent 95076
Denise Rubino 95123
David De La Mora 92688-1601
James Dinsmore 95062
Shawn Trujillo 94605
Theresa Gidney 95076
MITCH

WERTHEIMER
95062
Name Zip code
Brittany Lopez 95003
Kenneth
robedeau
95076
Steve Gallegos 95076
Danielle Bennett 95003
Debra Tegebo 93611
Alex Darocy 95060
Raven Wolfe 95060
A K 95060
Melissa Moe 95073
Brandon Diniz 95062
H. Olson 95062
Anita Dennis 95060
Sharlese Mariolo 95060
Edward Estrada 95065
Johnny G 95020
Drew Erskine 95060
Jim Carr 95073
Alina Haug 95126
Kristi FitzPatrick 95018
Sydney Corbin 95060
amanda
Nisewaner
95062
Dale Sky Jones 94619
Dustin S 95060
Citlalli RoblesCuéllar95073
Roger
Stoneburner
95066
Jacqueline Scott 95118
Angel Jara 95065
Michala Broadway 95066
Chris Tadina 95835
Gary Maushardt 95065
Name Zip code
Anthony Flores 95060
Marian Lamon 95076
Anthony Sanchez 95023
Colleen Roffe 95060
Melisa Arias 95076
Toby Schroder 55407
Victor Flores 95004
BIANCA CRUZ 95076
Sebastian Beca 95018
Sarah Todd 78748
Gerry Woodling 95062
Cindy Dalman 95063
Joseph Scanlon 95062
Laura DeFreyne 95060
Nate Ready 95060
Ricky Pierson 93426
Thomas Zabonik 95060
lynda leigh 95062
Heather Miller 95060
Charlie Miller 95060
Beatriz Matias 95076
Isabel Corella 93905
David Duryea 95060
Lindsey Ramirez 95066
Nilo Alvarado 95062
Nicole Alvarado 95062
Pablo Pena 95076
Tyrek Boone 95062
Alina Cueva 95060
Lisa Dunham 95005
Eva Duckler 95076
Tonya Skelton 95019
Name Zip code
Myah Bettencourt 95010
Kristie Wilson 95010
kat kendrick 95076
Sandra Corona 95050
Jesse Mendoza 95065
Craig pratt 95010
Ken Gunville 95062
Judy Cassada 95010
Rachel Sliney 95060
Bug Ruzon 94043
Kylie Pettis 96060
Juliana garcia 95023
Kaylen Carilli 95073
Anthony Santoya 95076
Jill Tipton 95076
Min Kang 90004
Grace Flores 95019
Alex Zee 95060
Antonio PartidaBartoni95076
Bob Nair 95010
Alexis Staunton 95010
Judy Jackson 95060
Patricia Tostes 95076
Kelley Mfn Moss 28083
Stephanie
Bracamonte
95207
Carrie Browde 95062
Katrina Joesten 95076
Steve Giacomelli 95060
Evan Hickey 95121
Cheri Sacks 95062
John Donham 94591
Name Zip code
Naomi
Stensgaard
95003
Avery Champlin 93561
Dawnell Smith 93940
Rosa Valdovinos 95045
Salvador Carrillo 95075
Keith Bishoff 95010
Alec Arteaga 95076
Joselyne Zamora 95076
Timothy Morland 95758
Roger DiFoggio 95062
Ashley Hooten 95062
Rudy Sanchez 95076
Isaac De Armas 95076
Janet Hipolito
Garcia
95076
Sydney Niiyama 95060
Juana Vargas 95976
Carmel Hughes 95010
Grace Chisholm 95060
Brandy Lopez 95003
Elle R. 95060
Phillip Gomez 95062
Stephen Shaver 95060
DEBRA STAAB 95033
G Putnins 93907
Juan Urias 95020
Nate wright 95004
Ed Dickie 95017
Jorge Ruiz 95019
Tristan Hara 95060
Terah Polockow 95010
Elizabeth Metcalf 95076
Name Zip code
nika bagherian 95070
Ruben F 95076
Reyah Chanel 84093
Wade Laughter 95959
Joanne Schultz 95023
ritchard cisneros 93907
Toby Morning 95060
Anthony Sanchez 95076
Marcus McKnight 95008
Thuong Tran 95008
Dominique
Lamproe
95023
Celeste Beautz 95065
Karla Vazquez 95062
Matt Alldridge 95076
Danielle Reader 95076
Amy Soloninka 96003
Maritza Ortega 95064
Glen Schriever 84780
Brandie Folres 94063
Lorena Provencio 95073
Jennifer May 95062
Michael Gorman 95062
Greg Cross 95060
Linda Turner 95005
Ksenia Crow 95060
Erik Kayhart 95003
Mar Sweetman 95007
Tony herr 95062
Justin Smaine 95062
Kirsten Swanson 95003
Samantha Motz 95060
Craig Sadler 95060
Name Zip code
David Larkin 95060
Gabriel Scholl 95018
Patricia Tower 95060
Daisy Gomez 95076
Alix Cardenas 95060
Lanie Overton 95060
Liz Aiello 95060
Noah Annes 90046
Naomi Lieberman 96062

ROSEMARY

DOOLING
95010
Andre Ramirez 95076
Veronica Valadez 95126
Suzanne Rudder 95060
Abigail Ojeda 95008
Erica O 95076
Honey Kealoha 95007
Christopher
Morand
94550
Carrie Walton 95062
Joe Walton 95062
Joanne Parcel 95003
América Trujillo 95020
Catherine
Caldwell
95062
Joe Robinson 95003
Omar Aridi 95062
Julianne Glahn 95060
Karen Menehan 95060
James Himelic 95010
Paul Andrade 95060
Maryellen Olson 95076
Tina Mazzei 95060
James Zoromski 95060
Name Zip code
Linda Martin
Hellyer
93950
Lynne Formigli 95008
Jevan Gray 95060
Michael hinkel 95117
Zena Mena 95062
Nick Watson 95062
Paula Morin 95073
Patricia Rodrigues 93906
Nancy Kensinger 95062
Wendolyn justice 95010
Chris Maddox 95062
Lisa Mazzei 95060-5913
Bodi Tunheim 95060
Robert Van Roo 95949
Vannah Bourne 95064
Ryan Masters 95018
isabel barenoegan95060
Rachael Patterson 95064
Katy Ravazza 95060
Ellie Miller 95060
Jordyn Stotler 95060
Kristen Yoder 90291
Emmy Gonzalez 95062
Nancy Houghtby 95066
Erika Fletcher 94501
Kyle Suess 95062
Ellen Solway 95060
Matty Sandoval 95060
Ana Esquivel 95076
Malka Nagel 95060
Spencer Marshall 95003
Name Zip code
Temo Orta 95076
Tamsin Kennedy 95003
Elaine Peach 95062
Calista
Getzschmann
95020
John Byrnes 95062
Rebecca
Northcutt
95018
Jessica Carrasco 95076
Rosemarie Yamat 95033
Andrew Purchin 95060
Jennifer Thomas 95060
Rebecca Ross 95060
Mollie Sorensen 95003
Eliyahu Goodman 95060
Ismael Valladares 95062
Peter Pietrangeli 95060
Teresa Kelly 95060
Andy Aguilar 95076
Angela Doriot 95076
Bella Brown 95003
Mio KamstraBrown95062
Calarampio
Pascual
95073
ginny stone 95001
Meghan
Henderson
95073
Neera Bhatnagar 95003
Karen Etter 95010
Patty Parle 95006
Dawn Campbell 95060
Kalei Alderman 95076
Michael Deharo 95023
Amy Clarke 95010
Name Zip code
Marissa Medrano 93906
Marisa Ridgway 95060
Zoe R 95006
Sherry
MacFarlane
95006
Michael
Gottsegen
95006
Kyle Schloss 95017
Annika Anderson 95060
Aaron Veatch 95814
Ana C 95060
Shanan Schmitt 95066
Lee Loewy 95073
Elizabeth Serafin 95062
Bernice Castillo 95076
Joshua Wall 95060
Nathan G 95076
John Vitale 95060
Adrian Fischer 95060
Athrva Pannase 94568
Andriana Goodell 95061
Adrienne Kozy 95062
Christine Swan 95060
Jackie Mason 95076
Miguel Gutierrez 95076
Sherida
Robertson
95073
Brent Ruhne 95062
Juan J. Avalos 95076
Tara P 95003
Raquel
Hernandez
95076
Jaqueline Campos 92113
Massiel Lopez 95076
Name Zip code
Ruth Naranjo 95076
Jennifer Rocha 95076
Charlene Romeo 95060
Betty King 95063
April
Shimabukuro
95060
Andrew Siegler 95112
Ted Monohon 95136
gisele mendes 95076
Christina
Shimabukuro
95127
reanna ettelbrick 95037
Michael Lane 95060
Sebastian
Goodwin
95073
Brian Gauthier 95062
Lacey Leon 95076
Aliyah Herrera 93906
Elena Sandoval 95901
Victoria
Villagomez
95050
daniel schroyer 95062
Gabe Carrillo 95010
Anna Gonzales 95062
Chris Roe 95076
Jackie Ayala 95076
Alyssa Diaz 95076
Corwin Ogaz 95033
Alyssa SantanaOliveira95010
josue trigo 95076
Isabel Esveidy 93907
Emily Kenville 95060
Osvaldo Arana 95076
Silvia Gonzalez 95076
Name Zip code
Rachel Barnes 95060
Jacky Medina 95076
Julie M 95076
Victoria M 95076
Andrea Wemmer 94041
Sarahi M 95076
Keana Aragon 89509
Jessica Alvarado 95076
Alejandra
Alvarado
95076
Gloria Melice 95076
Liza Stein 94710
Kevin Heldt 95001
Sam Sternlight 95060
Karl Bischoff 95076
Justin Bergson 95062
John Seniuk 95062
Doug Damico 95062
Annette Mello 95006
Ariana Jones 95010
Melina Gallardo 95010
Quinn Abbey 95018
Andora Futrell 95018
Brittni Yurchak 95066
Sam Corl 95409
Anne Seales 95062
Sean Gleavy 94122
Randie Silverstein 95065
Giovanna
Pastrone
95030
Silka Jewell 95062
Kym Housr 95010
Melody Hoffman
Myers
95062
Name Zip code
Trina Larson 95076
Robert Preite 95060
Erin Nemecek 95060
Gabriel Zamora 95076
Chosita
Wotanedtum
95003
Kathleen Stratton 950605958
Brandy
Warzewick
95033
Mark Mendoza 95010
Andrew Boose 95066
Ricky Pimentel 95060
Kristen Garringer 12546
Ezra Rose 95005
brenton jones 95003
Catherine King 95003
Karina Guillen 95076
Chavez Adriana 95019
Jamison Maiden 95060
allison texeira 95621
Moises Plascencia 95076
Matthew Huse 95033
Angel Diaz 95019
Ricky DiBattista 95062
Malia Oprisko 92116
Jeff Montion 95076
Jose Alvarez 94603
Jose abraham
Becerril cruz
55220
Aldo Sedano 95128
McCay Ruddick 95062-3217
Hylen James 95062
Samuel Mussetter 95062
Samuel S 95060
Name Zip code
marina garcia 95032
paige mallory 95367
Robert Ramos 95073-9568
Steven Lerma 95066
Jocelin
Dominguez
95019
Luis Ortiz 95019
Aaliyah Segura 95019
Chelsea Dickson 95060
Laura Zuleta 95060
Elizabwth
Busnardo
95060
Araceli Tecpile 95046
Serenity Chavero 93901
Leana Rose 95003
Marcus C. 95148
Kevin Smith 95148
Anthonh Bosso 95073
Craig Jones 95076
Heather Ebeling 95076
Athena Flannery 95060
Elijah K 95240
liz asnault 95242
Alexandra
Murphy
95003
Robert Bowen 95062
Michael Spivey 95003
Krista Medina 95076
Salomon Valdez 95076
Elaiyah Holmes 94550
Ronnie R 95076
Cosme Lobato 95076
Salvador
Hernandez
95976
Name Zip code
Sarah Jeffery 95076
Valerie Gunder El
Kharbotly
95033
Carolyn Roberts 95060
Kasey Haines 93675
Dixie Madsen 82420
Alice Crumrine 95062
Colin Skye 95062
Pedro Garcia 95076
Alejandro Nava 95073
James Price 95065
Susan Green 95018
Caroline Delgado 95020
Mark Meacham 95018
Matthew Caraway 95005
Kristina Buchanan 95062
Athena Silva 95076
Attalyne
Gutierrez
95006
Lark Young 95066
Jet Esteban 95076
Susannah Lee
maddox
95003
Sinjin Baust 93950
Cveteslava
Ivanova
95065
Thomas Laxton 95060
Cassidy Wilkins 95065
Anna Silva 95076
Marisa Badu 94123
Mario Quinonez 95111
Victoria Canter 95060
Devyn Swift 95991
Chris Chmelicek 95076
Name Zip code
Brandon Martin 94702
Xochitl Carrillo 95136-2613
Manny Alvarez 95066
nolan klosterman 90027
Claire Lewis 95112
Canille Sobalvarro 95073
Amanda Thomas 95065
Michael Ferre 95076
Crystin Johnson 95060
Bianca Cruz
Leonardo
92106
jamie lafollette 95073
Karla Ricks 95010
Mechon Scoggins 95112
Camille Trujillo 94602
Lola Quiroga 95060
Carol Morgan 95017
Tamo Willsat 95076
Lynne Andreasen 95060-2936
Miles Babcock 95037
Zak Wood 94110
ellie Guzman 93907
Mowgli McKay 92646
Hailey Tagalicud 95050
Kelly Mosley 95004
Brandon
Livingston-Reed
93940
Brandi Manuelcalvo95005
Thomas Frye 95076
Jenny Roberts 94609
Hailey Fernandes 95380
Beth Davis 96010
Isabella Baxter 95076
Name Zip code
Malyk Johnson 95076
Damian Zaragoza 95076
Monica Bales 95006
Salvador Flores 95020
Wendy Ballen 95010
Analisa
Thompson
93601
Robert Braun 95126
Peter Knox 80224
Cory Anderson 50265
Patricio Teran 07036
Rossy Hernandez 95060
Juan Lara 95060
Layla Dulay 95691
Claire Harden 94559
Steve Lieberherr 48858
Isaiah Ruckman 95060
Justin Cox 95060-4849
Alyna Hobbs 95060
Victoria Brago 90034
Leif Bonfils 95945
Hydie Wyatt 95060
Brian Rochq 95060
Ellen Wesley 95111
paul cheatham 95060
Amber Roccaforte 95033
Danielle Cosgrove 95062
Meline Bennett 95018
Joe Valenzuela 95033
David Goldsberry 95018
Hannah Rogers 95018
Mimi Peleg 95062
Kristopher Falk 95076
Name Zip code
jonathan tolbert 95076
Michael Kolar 95060
Robert Finch 95010
Quianna Cress 95018
Kira King 92651
Alyssia Baly 94403
Samson Higareda 91791
Louis Santia 95065
Duncan Gwynne 95065
Noah Schulz 95060
Adam Durden 95019
John Pocock 95018
Zhangir
Botabekov
92653
DAVID NIST 95062
Carina chavez 95060
Maria carina
Chavez mata
95060
Leeann Buck 95010
Eliana Milla 95020
Jackeline
Castorena
95076
Marly Zenger 83687
Kenton Alm 95003
Kiki Callaghan 94507
Devin Fifeld 95010
Lisa Rainer Read 95062
Debi LauriguetKolar95060
Ruby Tennant 98102
Nora Aron 97209
Valerie Phung 77018
Elizabeth Grace 95060
bella blas 95003
Name Zip code
Angel Vaughn 95062
Aidan McComb 95060
Lowry Panttaja 95065
Ruby Monsen 94060
Desmond Aron 97266
Cassady Monsen 94060
logan small 95060
Thomas Daskaloff 95062
Janet Ferrare 95060
Aki'o Nanamura 95062
Nathen Cannon 94551
Logan Wright 94550
David Olmsted 94551
Victor Hernandez 95076
Jennifer Forrest 95062

GERARDO

RODRIGUEZ
95076
Jennifer Ochoa 93905
Christie Kelley 95066
Nancy Graham 95062
Desiree
McCloskey
95062
Leslee Johsens 95033
Star Estrada 95076
Joanna Villegas 95076
Raul Gaona 95012
Tessa Reynaga 95073
DeAndre Warren 95062
Victoria Grose 60655
Margaret Rocha 95076
paris b 95003
Sarah Reagan 95926
Daria Mattly 95062
Name Zip code
Sol Posada 95073
Gracee Pluto 95060
Dr. LeTa Jussila,
DAOM
95003
Luke Dwyer 95062
Christopher
Fredricks
95062
Hayley Miller 95003
Pam Larwood 95001
Robert D Ackerly 95062
Jordan Pierini 95003
Isaac Garfinkel 95062
Jasmon Dugan 95062
Tracey Kahan 92057
Jordan
Koronkowski
95003
Haley Rae
Clemente
95062
Gavin Kindlon 95018
Adali Cortes 95060
Aaliyah Allmon 95124
Rick Menzies 95060
Joy
Schendledecker
95060
Heather Ritzman 94124
Ernestina Saldana 95062
Ashton Alderman 95067
Amithi Chordiya 95060
Luna Bey 95065
Garrett Badano 95060
Alex Cobb 95010
Eva Erickson 95003
Peter Hartshauser 95076
Stephanie Smith 95060
Sjoerd Broeks 95003
Name Zip code
Graham Mitchell 95073
Sherrie Bly 46062
Ryan Calamia 95010
Hollis Buchanan 95003
tanner chel 95060
Noel Pena 95003
Jade Hildreth 95062
Armando ServinFranco95062
Isabella Springer 95060
Wayne Miller 95060
John Calzada 93901
Skylar Harris 95076
Tri Del 95014
Yotzira Flores 95076
Magdalena Kokot 95076
Haley Ruddick 96826
Erica Pittman 95062
Naomi Embernate 95073
Terri Primavera 95060
Lia Aquino 95067
Jennifer Grigsby 95076
Isabel Coss 95003
Jeremy Bandoni 95060
Nathena Martinez 95076
Kali Herrera 95076
Lira Filippini 95062
Melvee Filippini 95062
Stephen Svete 95060
Samuel Valdivia 95062
Kathryn StClair 95062
Robert Duran 95062
Name Zip code
Schaefer
Roemmele
95060
Cady St. Clair 95062
Mary Wilson 49001
Amy Kaskowitz 95062
Lucas Wade 95060
Joyce schmidt 95076
Lee Brokaw 95062
Gary Patton 95062-1501
Elise Soto 95018
Ron Pomerantz 95060
Angela Marie 95060
Carla Mata 95019
Kelly Oppermann 95062
Candace Brown 95062
Rebecca Huth 95065
Pauline McCrea 94952
Karen Warren 95060
Michelle Baker 95060
Darrol Wood 95076
Susan Martinez 95060
Shelley Hatch 95062
Fred Geiger 95060
Sheila Carrillo 95060
Jonathan Sargent 94024
Shawn Hatten 94024
Valencia Deal 95010
Michael Carballo 95060
Michael Puente 95062
Anup Desai 95073
Judy Clark 95073
Denica De Foy 93950
John Pendo 95060
Name Zip code
Samantha
Sommer
95060
Madeline Roe 95060
Adrian P 95076
Christie Kissinger 95010
Alexandra Welch 95003
Erin Roberts 95062
Guy Berryessa 96781
Julia Conley 95010
Desiree Cassel 95076
Sharon Rose 95005
Brenda Greer 95005
Gevan Shavely 95005
Rose Perkins 95006
Dr. Brooke Dix 95003
Arturo Montanio 95018
Doro Moscovitz 95005
Alan Charles
Tawzer
95005
Zach Birkhahn 95005
Jeff Parry 95006
Ed A 95006
Dawn Breese 95005
Dominick Vaughn 95060
Stew Smith 95018
Kevin F. Foehr 95007
Pedro Luna 95060
Jared Houser 95060
David Hanson 95060
Derek Fohs 95060
Terry Walker 95060
Sandra VinesWalker95060
Jarod O 95060
Name Zip code
Nathan Martisius 95060
Lindsay
Stubblefield
95060
Calvin Garitt 95060
Sarah Holub 95061
Anna Zivian 95060
Jen Smith 95060
Stuart Abel 95060
Marco Foreman 95060
Zack Edwards 95060
Mike Knittin 95060
Richard Rodriguez 95060
Mark Hansen 95060
Manny Sanchez 95060
Brett Miller 95060
Adam Bell 95060
Jeyaehandron
Rathagopal
95060
Dan Rock 95060
Paige Roberts 95060
Scott Alberston 95060
Michelle Leira 95060
Emerson HurleyToombs95060
Debi Giorchino 95949
Samaya Cullerton 95060
Charlene Rivera 95007
Lauri Papay 95050
Hector Rivera 95020
John Oler 95062
Sean Rodriguez 95062
Leslie Ledezma 95076
Joseph
Cunningham
95010
Name Zip code
Kelsey Grim 95060
Kevin Huth 95065
Alexis Rojas 95076
Aidan Fann 95062
Enn Louise
Schendledecker
Demos
95060
Nicole Pappas 95060
Angela
Henrickson
95060
Chris Drennen 93933
Michelle Sohnlein 95062
sarah gray 95003
Jeremy Iglehart 95010
Rich Berger 95076
Angelina
Blumberg
95060
Paul Cuccia 95076
Natasha Fabricant 95060
Grant V 95060
Emily Wells 95076
Slim Heilpern 95003
Roman
Davidovich
95060
Desiree Worthy 95060
Haley Kolus 95060
Dominic Romano 95060
Ntina Renales 95020
Susan Worth 95073
Benjamin Medved 95060
Evie V. 95062
Lucille Brayson 95062
Max Rothe 95757
Evelyn Hernandez 95045
Jason Kadilak 95006
Name Zip code
Sina Panahi 96018
Ashley Hawkins 95076
Ami Mills 95060
Jasmine Waite 95060
Jordyn Waite 95060
Will Kahn 95076
Dr. Oshakula 95060
Nasim Mohr 95060
Amdre DalCorso 95060
Jim Wirt 95060
Leah Carroll 95073
Ayo Banjo 95060
Jill Susskind 95060
Alexandra Henry 95060
Christian Lujano 95060
Vincent Luna 95060
Patch Luna 95060
Jessica Heit 95060
Emery Nocasco 95060
Margo Go 95060
Chloe Rickards 95060
Alyvia Sutton 95060
Aaron Fitzgerald 95062
Keoni Akioka 95060
Ana Avalos 95060
Sayanni Mojica 95060
Samantha
Barragan
95060
Merly Barrameda 95060
Doug Damico 95062
Brent Pederson 95005
Naacy Halllmark 95073
Laura Waldog 95062
Name Zip code
Kyle Slavich 95062
Brad Meyers 95062
Katy Link 95062
Maria Hoffman 95062
Wolfgang
Snyweber
95062
Craig A Hyder 95062
Jesus Candelas 95062
Randy Nelson 95062
Gabriel Rocha 95060
Mayra GonralesAdler95062
Manuel Ruelas 95004
David Gonzales 95060
Rovel Magic 95062
Michael Hopping 95060
Justin Beam 95062
Kieran Killburn 95060
Reuben Lopez 95060
Quinn Passantino 95062
Iden Killburn 95060
Isaiah Parva 95062
David White 95060
Meggan Stringent 95060
Jonathan Strasso 95060
Alina Cress 95018
Steven G Berlin 95018
Cindy Well 95062
Justine Leonard 95060
Misty Mcdonald 95062
Alan Nourishad 95060
Phobe Belcher 95062
Tanna Mectluy 95062
Name Zip code
Elizabeth Hillier 95003
Kevin Walter 95062
Barbara Spencer 95062
Elliot Yeuy 95060
Kate Koepye 95062
Lee Menall 95062
Alejandro A 95062
Brendan Brose 95005
Thomas Feldsted 95060
Thalia Garcia 95066
Ryan Sutton 95060
Jole Espinoza 95060
Bobby Delsadu 95112
William Smith 95062
Ace Gastillo 95018
Nula Lerl 95060
Jason Byer 95062
E Gage Reinmar 95060
Grant Rolston 95062
Anthony Deladaz 95062
Isiah Paz 95062
Jorge Arregnia 95060
Milene Freire 95010
Cole Higbea 95060
Savannah Pele 95060
Lauren Potts 95062
Bryan Denton 95062
Naneth DeGarmo 95060
Dorthy DeGarmo 95060
Linda Raevers 95060
Violette Baker 95060
Casey DeGarmo 95060
Name Zip code
Rabrut Maviu 95062
Jesse DeGarmo 95060
Thea Crowbear 95060
Anne Morbid 95062
AJ DeGarmo 95060
Shannon
Macisaac
95076
Claire Camomile 95062
Sabrina
Barrymore
95060
Edwin Gonzolez 95060
Marissa Hill 95060
James Schalin 95005
Geovana Ferro 95060
Mikey Huynh 95060
Pat Milea 95060
Orlando Alvarado 95060
Banesa
Hernandez
95060
Juliana Perez 95060
Gail Williamson 95060
Cheryl Bennett 95062
Naneth Dellamo 95060
Ellie Mae 95060
Thomas Langan 95062
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 4:58 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Wamm
• Santa Cruz City Council:

I've followed WAMM since the begining and Valerie is a close personal friend for many years, I have volunteered at their almar location and have seen with my eyes how effective THC/CBD is in stopping seizures in children. I'm also a 100% disabled Vietnam combat veteran. I was capture and tortured. I use medical cannabis to treat my PTSD and arthritis. Santa Cruz is world famous for allowing medical cannabis be given to sick ill cancer patients on the steps of city hall. Over the years WAMM has provided at no charge medical cannabis to thousands of cancer patients. Valerie Corral is a hero. Our own mother Theresa. Santa Cruz should be proud and continue to honor and support her!
Gary Poland
13880 Hwy 9
Boulder Creek ca 95006
(510)860-0583
3 Julia Wood
From: robert bose <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 2:19 PM
To: City Council
Subject: The hook
I support. The. Hook new. Westside. Locaঞon. I hope you will to Thanks Robert . 1 Julia Wood
From: David Poandl <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 7:42 AM
To: City Council
Subject: WAMM
Please vote in favor of WAMM'
David S Poandl
2 Julia Wood
From: William Wright <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 7:59 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Dispensary
I fully support the placing of a new cannabis dispensary at the site of the former bakery on Mission Street. The security at every dispensary I have to shopped is more than enough to prohibit underage patrons.

There's no path to peace. Peace is the path.
3 Julia Wood
From: ANGELA MARIE <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 8:39 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Keep approval of WAMM facility on Mission Street Dear City Council Members,
Please keep the approval for the WAMM facility on Mission Street at the Emily’s Bakery spot.

WAMM has benefited our community for 30 years. Vocal public support has come from health professionals such as Arnie Leff, MD, the county and the city’s health officer; law enforcement leaders such as former Police Chief Rudy Escalante; and beloved civic leaders including state Sen.

John Laird, and the late former Mayor and Supervisor Mardi Wormhoudt.

Research indicates that the location of a dispensary consistent with the Santa City ordinance is appropriate. Our city created conservative rules and mapped approved sites, and the proposed dispensary is in an approved location.

Thank you for considering my opinion as a city voter.

Angela Marie
Western Drive
Santa Cruz
4 Julia Wood
From: Leah Belair <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 9:04 AM
To: City Council
Subject: WAMM
To the City Council:

As a long time resident of Santa Cruz (50 years) I am writing in support of WAMM being able to use the former site of Emily’s Bakery on Mission St as a Marijuana Dispensary.

WAMM has served sick people in this City and County for many years, often at a minimal or no cost to those who could not afford typical dispensary prices. WAMM has shown its dedication to serving those in need of medical marijuana over the years. Their help was invaluable to our family during my husband’s cancer treatment almost 10 years ago.

City Council should be enforcing the rules governing dispensaries, not arbitrarily applying new parameters because a few concerned people object to their location. This location falls within all the current rules and guidelines allowing a dispensary to operate. All the studies show dispensaries are not serving underage schoolchildren. Please let’s be realistic here: kids in this town do not need a dispensary to get “pot” , it is readily available a cheaper on the black market. My own son had an issue as a teenager with unhealthy use of marijuana, and it was difficult for us to deal with, and at that time dispensaries did not exist. He had no problem accessing the drug and it derailed his adolescence, but we still support the establishment of legal dispensaries.

Valerie Corral has shown her dedication to this community and invested in this project after being told it met all the established rules, codes etc. As a community we are obligated to allow this project to move forward.

Many of us are watching this vote, please do the right thing.

Sincerely,
Leah Belair
5 Julia Wood
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 12:00 PM
To: City Council
Subject: WAMM
WAMM has long made positive contributions to the health and quality of life of Santa Cruz citizens.

They have helped, and continue to help, people with AIDS, cancer, and so many many other health challenges.

They have worked with community members to grow and distribute clean marijuana at minimum, or no, cost.

They are in compliance with local regulations, and I urge you to approve their new home at Laurel and Mission.

They are a well managed COMMUNITY ASSET.

Respectfully,
LaVerne Coleman
6 Julia Wood
From: Lois Roth <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 12:32 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]; Matt
Subject: WAMM cannabis dispensary SUPPORT
Hello,
My name is Lois Roth and I've lived in Santa Cruz County since 1992.

I first met Valerie and the WAMM organization after a major depression disorder diagnosis. Unable to use anti-depressants, constantly feeling disoriented, I discovered a successful medical marijuana solution through WAMM.

Over the ensuing years, cannabis has become Recreational and Valerie/WAMM has continued to serve the community unselfishly.

I have shopped at 'The Hook' and 'Treehouse' locations and security has been tight, efficient. Taken seriously, Every time, Every location, Period! I would expect the same at the new location. Perhaps tighter since this fuss about proximity to schools.

Concerning the Mission Street location,(formally Emily's bakery), I endorse the location. I ENCOURAGE the Santa Cruz council to approve the dispensary opening without delay.

Regards,
Lois Roth
Get Outlook for Android
7 Julia Wood
From: Eugene Tsuji <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 7:34 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Wamm
Hello
When my late wife Robin was in horrible pain from advanced cancer, opioids were barely working and the side effects made life miserable. Her doctor suggested medical cannabis and recommended WAMM.

Valerie made us feel so at ease, answering every question we had. Her humanity was evident from the start. Unlike the "gold rush" of many current dispensaries Valerie was driving a rolling heap of junk, providing medical cannabis at need. She is not in it for the money. If you could pay full freight, you knew that you were subsidizing someone who couldnt. Valerie represents the true spirit of Santa Cruz. She is a healer not a money counter.

Please allow Valerie and Wamm to continue their good works. If they make a few bucks in the process great they deserve it. Whether a dispensary is a block or a mile away, entry into a dispensary is no easy task. Our children are safe. Please do the right thing and let her work Eugene Tsuji
831 840 3711
8 Julia Wood
From: Micah Breeden <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 8:15 AM
To: City Council
Subject: WAMM Dispensary Support Letter
Hello,
I am a property owning (since 2005) voting resident (since 1985) of Santa Cruz and want to state my strong support for the WAMM dispensary on Mission Street in the old Kelly's Bakery building.

This project adheres to all State laws regarding dispensaries and will provide invaluable care for those in need.

The recent Op-Ed in the Santa Cruz Sentinel by Ben Rice and the support issued by John Laird are strong and powerful statements that I support.

Please do the right thing and issue your support on this issue.

Sincerely,
Micah Breeden
122 Oxford Way
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831.332.8466
9 Julia Wood
From: Carolyn Rudolph <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 10:54 AM
To: City Council
Subject: WAMM Mission St
Dear Santa Cruz City Council,
I live close to the neighborhood where the proposed WAMM dispensary is proposed to open. I never see groups of students at lunch time, or any time, walking in that area. This is a medical dispensary, to aid those who are ill and poor, to bring ease to their suffering. The building has already been authorized and money spent for the built out. This WAMM site could offer an opportunity to teach compassion to teenagers about sick and poor patients, in need of help. To me, it wrong, and destructive, to overturn the approval, at this late date. Santa Cruz historically has been supportive of WAMM, offering therapeutic cannabis to help sick and poor patients.

I urge the City Council to vote in favor of WAMM.

Thank you,
Carolyn Rudolph
10 Julia Wood
From: Paul Cheatham <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 12:13 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please support WAMM at MIssion and Laurel Street Dear City Council,
Please allow WAMM and their partners to establish a location at the intersection of Mission Street and Laurel Street. This new WAMM location will allow the valuable community health work WAMM has been doing for decades to continue in a way that is accessible for people who need WAMM's services. Wamm is one of the most authentic health providers, WAMM truly serves people and improves people's lives, helping WAMM succeed improves the city of Santa Cruz.

Thank you!
--
Paul
11 Julia Wood
From: Paul Cheatham <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 12:16 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support for Valerie Corral and WAMM at Mission and Laurel Dear City Council,
Please support Valerie Corral and her associates with their project at Mission Street and Laurel Street.

Valerie Corral is a valuable leader of the Santa Cruz community. For decades she has improved the lives of countless people in Santa Cruz and beyond with her kindness and knowledge of health and healing! I live just up the street from the location of her proposed development, I walk by it everyday. I believe Valerie's plans would greatly improve the intersection of Mission and Laurel Street and the greater community. Please help Valerie's vision come true. Thank you. --
Paul Cheatham
(Founder No Enemy)
www.noenemy.org
(831) 345-6935
12 Julia Wood
From: D Cosgrove <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 6:18 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Uphold Your Own Rules, Approve Hook Outlet/WAMM To the Santa Cruz City Council:

As a Santa Cruz Resident, I vehemently support The Hook Outlet’s and WAMM Phytotherapies’ proposed dispensary at 1129 Mission St. This project embodies responsible cannabis business pracঞces, bolsters our economy, and upli[s our most vulnerable ciঞzens –– all prioriঞes explicitly outlined in the city’s general plan.

The Hook Outlet’s partnership with WAMM, our naঞon’s oldest and most revered medical cannabis collecঞve, guarantees compassionate care remains accessible. For over 30 years, WAMM has provided free medicine to our community’s most criঞcally ill. Denying a dispensary in a locaঞon that meets all zoning requirements would be a direct aack on their ability to serve those most in need.

The Hook Outlet consistently exceeds regulatory standards. Their robust security plan, discreet storefront, voluntary age restricঞon policy, and youth prevenঞon outreach via www.safecannabis.net demonstrate that safeguarding our community, especially its youth, is a core value.

Furthermore, this business is a proven asset to Santa Cruz. They generate jobs, bolster our tax base, and acঞvely support local non-profits. The Planning Commission’s recommendaঞon for approval underscores the project’s merit and compliance.

Denying this applicant, despite their community support and adherence to every guideline, would be a profoundly damaging breach of trust. It signals to businesses that invesঞng in Santa Cruz is a fool’s errand, as regulaঞons are subject to arbitrary change.

I demand that the City Council uphold its commitment to transparency and predictability by approving The Hook Outlet and WAMM’s applicaঞon. Failure to do so sets a chilling precedent with far-reaching consequences.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Santa Cruz Resident
Sent from iPhone
13 Julia Wood
From: Jay Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 9:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: WAMM Appeal Information
Around 2016, when I was running the front desk for WAMM, a young student from San Francisco asked me for assistance with receiving medical marijuana for his cancer, a type lymphoma. He was 22.

He told me that UCSF had referred him to WAMM for marijuana to help with his condition, When he told me he had 2 and ½ months to live, I realized that WAMM was his last chance for solice.

I served 100s of people like him, people with cancer, ms, parkinsons, trauma, epilepsy, you name it.

WAMM served those who needed their care more than anyone else. I have personally seen it my self.

I have also been through cancer. It was not easy. It was extremely painful, in many, many ways. Horrifying in fact, going though an illness like that is something I do not wish on anyone to have to do.

Granting WAMM the right to operate is a common sense given, considering the value that WAMM has provided though compassionate care to those who cannot afford to buy their medicines elsewhere.

Val has never made much doing this. In fact, if Val wanted to have made money doing this, she would be quite wealthy from it. The potential was there, but she did it, not for the money, but for the needy.

I can tell you from experience, Val has the best interests at heart for the Santa Cruz Community.

WAMM should be allowed to proceed with their plan. The Planning department approved it. The Public Planning appeal meeting was finalized. WAMM has every right to continue under the law. 15 Julia Wood
From: Shalom Dreampeace Compost <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 10:20 PM
To: City Council
Subject: WAMM has done a lot of good work
Let them have their permit
Shalom
16 Julia Wood
From: Ann Bodine <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 11:29 PM
To: City Council
Subject: new marijuana dispensary on Mission Sr.

I am strongly in favor of legal, visible cannabis dispensaries. I have purchased from such dispensaries on several occasions and certainly would not have wanted to purchase anywhere else. And having endured years in which first a son and later a grandson had serious drug problems, I can assure you that neither EVER obtained their drugs from a dispensary! Please vote in favor of the new dispensary on Mission St. and keep obtaining cannabis above-board and safe, rather than illegal street purchasing of possibly dangerously tainted/contaminated cannabis. --Ann Bodine
831-600-7362 (landline, no text)
17 Julia Wood
From: Patricia Washko <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2024 11:14 AM
To: City Council
Subject: WAMM Mission St location
Dear Council
I would like to state my vote for approval of the previous Emily’s Bakery locaঞon on Mission and Walnut for WAMM to open a new cannabis dispensary.

As a dispensary customer I can guarantee that a license is required every ঞme I enter a site, whether or not I have been there before or not and also whether I look my age (79)!! So I believe the establishment will not allow underage customers to enter.

Thank you
Patricia Washko
100 N Rodeo Gulch Rd, Sp 92
Soquel CA 95073
831 479-9421
831 419-5669
Sent from my iPhone
18 Julia Wood
From: Wild Man Ninja <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2024 11:44 AM
To: City Council
Subject: WAMM new location approval
Dear City of Santa Cruz,
My name is James Sclar, (40) and I am a USMC veteran as well as a Santa Cruz local all my life. I work at the Veterans Memorial building downtown, and I am a member of the Woman’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana ( WAMM )
It has come to my attention that WAMM is in need of a new location at the old Emily’s Bakery. However there has been pushback from the school district. I have a son that goes to Monarch. I understand the concerns of parents, and teachers who don’t want there children close to cannabis dispensary.

However, I can assure you as a parent that uses cannabis, and has a child that goes to school here in Santa Cruz, that it is not a problem. The war on drugs was a failure, and we do not need to continue the misinformation, and demonization of what we now know to be a very good plant with many many uses.

We do not need to teach our children the same behavior nor do I wish to continue allowing this sacred medicine to be taken away or blockaded in my own city. Our generation is here to set things straight, fix things, as well as heal the wounds inflicted by our previous mistakes.

Responsible parenting, and dispensaries that have age restrictions all work very well to make sure that our children don’t have premature access to the medicine. I myself educate my son about cannabis and he knows it’s not a taboo subject in our town, we are very proud that Santa Cruz Cannabis is well known in the cannabis community. It is currently being rescheduled by the DEA from schedule 1 to schedule 3.

We are proud to be one of the first few city’s in our entire country to lead the way in the decriminalization of ALL entheogens.

We are very grateful to have such wonderful medicine available for our community and veterans like myself who rely on cannabis for relief from PTSD. Cannabis is a source of spiritual freedom, and is now widely known throughout our culture of its positive and healing effects it has on individuals and communities. It is no longer mistaken as a harmful drug.

However I am not writing this email to teach the positive effects of cannabis, I am writing to inform you that I agree with WAMM and would absolutely love, and appreciate it if the city would allow them to open at the new location. It would be a perfect spot for us to have safe access to our beloved medicine. ꔤꔥꔦꔧ꽷꽸꽹꾏꽻꽼꾑꾐꽾꽿꾀꾁꾂꾃꾄꾅꾆꾇꾈꾒 It would reflect great honor on our community leaders, as well as be outstanding leadership to set an example for our children of what it is to change things for the better. No longer will cannabis users be seen as law breakers, and losers, but as healers and heroes! I am writing this email to inform everyone that I would very much appreciate giving the building to WAMM so that they continue their operations which include helping veterans like myself have access to cannabis medicine. By supporting WAMM and allowing them to open their dispensary at the new location would be directly supporting local Santa Cruz Veterans such as myself and many many others. It would also be a huge source for pride to know that Santa Cruz cares about its citizens freedoms and health.

Improving our city’s Mental Health/ homelessness are things that the cannabis community can help 19 make a difference to bring positive change. The cannabis community of Santa Cruz has been doing just that for many many years now. We have healthier civilians, the mental health issues that we share can also be healed together with our ability to grow cannabis, and give that cannabis to our community through the safety of dispensaries such as The Hook Outlet and The Tree House collective, the Santa Cruz Veterans Alliance, The KindPeoples Collective, 3BrosGrow, and many others, as well as the people themselves who have personal farms. There is a lot of love and positivity that has been imbedded in our community that has brought us together to heal, to learn, to laugh, to love. We have made great progress, and allowing that progress to continue growing will only continue to keep Santa Cruz healthy and safe.

Safe from more mental illness, leading to more homeless, and lost children… we can’t let that happen.

This next generation needs to grow up with cannabis seen for what it actually is, a super powerful medicine/tool that brings people so so so much.

Please put it in the records that, I James Sclar, fully support WAMM and all the local cannabis organizations we are blessed and proud to have here in our magical city if Santa Cruz.

I support and agree with allowing the Hook Outlet and WAMM open at their new location please and thank you.

I support Valerie Leveroni Corral.

I support WAMM
I support The Hook Outlet
@wamm_phytotherapies
@thehookoutlet
Sincerely,
James Sclar
USMC veteran
Santa Cruz local
Cannabis advocate
WAMM member
Veterans Village
20 Julia Wood
From: SACHA DEFOY <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 7:44 AM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Uphold Your Own Rules, Approve Hook Outlet/WAMM To the Santa Cruz City Council:

As a Santa Cruz Resident, I vehemently support The Hook Outlet’s and WAMM Phytotherapies’ proposed dispensary at 1129 Mission St. This project embodies responsible cannabis business pracঞces, bolsters our economy, and upli[s our most vulnerable ciঞzens –– all prioriঞes explicitly outlined in the city’s general plan.

WAMM has provided me with free medicine to help with my nerve pain and depression/anxiety. I am a quadriplegic female without the help of wamm I would not have been able to volunteer or be successful at geমng my BA in literature with a minor educaঞon. WAMM also provides a sense of community that I was lacking due to my parents passing. Valerie is one of the most kind people. I know I could always call her up if I need something. If she was able to do something for me she would. When I had to go to a nursing home for a few months, she and her roommate watched my cat as long as they could. Valerie doesn’t make money off of the products that she sells because she gives it right back to her community. If you vote against wamm and the hook, my pain level will be increased as well. Many other of your consঞtuents. It will definitely send the message that the city council does not care about the sick , disabled or dying community at these businesses support.

Please give us the opঞon to explore cannabis as a way of relieving Physical and emoঞonal pain instead of opiates or isolaঞon. Remember that you are supposed to be serving the community as our representaঞve.

Sincerely,
Sacha Defoy
831-236-3839
21 Sent from my iPhone
22 Julia Wood
From: Heather Cooper <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 7:56 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Cannabis Dispensary
To All Council Members,
I am writing to express my concern with the proposed cannabis dispensary moving in on Mission St.

As someone who attended Santa Cruz High School and as a parent whose children will attend in the future, I strongly feel it is just too close to the schools. Anyone who knows the area can see school children directly in front of the location daily and the parking lot is sometimes used as a hangout spot for students after school. It was like that 20 years ago when I was a student and it is still happening.

I am a big supporter of WAMM and would love to see them have a location to offer their services, but there are so many other locations available further from the schools. It doesn't make sense to choose a location which has caused so much controversy and negative input from the community.

In my opinion the solution seems simple; find a different location which doesn't upset the public and allow the business to operate and give WAMM patients the access they need. WAMM patients won't benefit from the location on Mission St, they have always had more discreet locations, however the Dispensary owners will benefit hugely and to me this isn't about the dispensary owners, it's about allowing WAMM to operate somewhere...just not there.

Thanks for your consideration,
Heather Burman
831-227-4478
23 Julia Wood
From: Christopher Habermann <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 9:59 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Emilys WAMM dispercery
Dear City Council,
My wife and I are long time resisdents of Santa Cruz and support the WAMM desipencery at the old Emilys building.

Please vote in favor of it.

Thanks,
Christopher Habermann
24 Julia Wood
From: Pam <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 12:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: May 14 and WAMM
City Council,
I do NOT think this is an appropriate locaঞon for (any) dispensary and request you REVERSE the planning department's decision.

If their clientele are people with compromised systems as noted, I would suggest WAMM "pivot" to a delivery service.

AS for the site, what happened to the potenঞal bakery for Emily's? That business did well and all could benefit.

It's the owners desire to reঞre that closed shop.
-Pam North
25 Julia Wood
From: Magdalena Mcann <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 8:45 PM
To: City Council
Subject: WAMM Dispensary.

I am writing in support of WAMM being able to have a dispensary in Santa Cruz, following their application for the former premises of Emily's bakery on Mission Street.

I had not paid a lot of attention to this issue previously, I don't use Marijuana, but absolutely support WAMM and the work they do.

Somewhere between hospice, healthcare, and social work, I trust them absolutely to provide only to the population they are legally allowed to supply. They have zero interest in selling to teenagers, they have far more important work to do.

Please support them in their application.

Thankyou, Magda Mccann.
26 Julia Wood
From: Randa Solick <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 9:11 PM
To: City Council
Subject: WAMM clinic
Hello councilmembers, I want to let you know of my support for the proposed WAMM marijuana dispensary at the old "Emily's Bakery", and ask ou to vote in favor of it. I know lots of high schoolers who walk in that area, but none of them would be able to get into the dispensary. WAMM has been doing an extraordinarily needed job for years - please help it continue.

Thank you, Randa Solick
27 Julia Wood
From: Jennifer Forrest <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 4, 2024 5:18 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Uphold Your Own Rules, Approve Hook Outlet/WAMM To the Santa Cruz City Council:

Sincerely,
Jennifer Forrest
714 Gerard Court
Santa Cruz CA 95062
(831) 345-9144
A Concerned Santa Cruz Resident
28 Julia Wood
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2024 12:19 PM
To: City Council
Subject: WAMM
If WAMM filed for and received permission from the City Planning Dept and Planning Commission to open a dispensary, I think you would be giving yourself a black eye if you concede to a fearmongering few and withdraw approval. WAMM's owner put out the money and effort to get the approvals. All codes and requirements are being met. To me, this would look like an illegal takings of a law-abiding citizen's money.

WAMM also represents what's best in our community: a local business, a pioneering business that fought big battles to bring what it believed was needed by our community to our community, a business with a reason for existing other than just the profit motive. Heaven forbid any of you should need their services, only to find they aren't there anymore.

Also, I think the fears are substantiated by - by NOTHING. Really? Someone thinks kids are going to access a legitimate cannabis dispensary by walking by it? Have you ever tried entering one? Please do, if you haven't yet. Do they think someone will purchase pot therein and resell it? Business 101: buy cheap, sell higher. Regulated pot is not cheaper than "street" pot. It isn't easier to access and it isn't cheaper.

I find it hard to believe that the person who started this fearmongering actually works with kids. Maybe they are too far removed from the little soon-to-be-adults. Kids, if they want drugs, will network and get it from a "street" dealer. It will be cheaper, easier. (Not safer, though. Unfortunately.) The kids are smarter than any adults who think the kids will try to get some pot the hard way.

Finally, is it too obvious to say? If you want the community to work with the City in good faith, the City needs to treat the community the same way. Please tell the people that everyone will be treated the same under the law. The law-abiding citizen here is the owner of WAMM. The City Council should absolutely not undermine the approvals of City Planning. Nor should it cater to fearmongering, ever, even if the fearmongers appear to be upright citizens in every other aspect.

Thank you.

PLEASE DO NOT SHARE ANY OF MY PERSONAL INFORMATION UNLESS LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO SO.

Elizabeth Knights
711 Laurel Glen Rd
Soquel CA 95073
29 Julia Wood
From: Wise Ways <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 11:46 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Dispensary for WAMM
I live quite close (0.4 miles) to the proposed WAMM dispensary site and I am in favor of this project. There are dispensaries all over the city and many on the Westside. Why would you single out this one? WAMM is a legiঞmate and respected non-profit that provides affordable medical cannabis to those in need. Please allow them to conঞnue their mission on the proposed Mission St. locaঞon.

Eva Wax
1131 King St., SC 95060
[email protected]
30 Julia Wood
From: Michelle Massie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 1:44 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Community Feedback

Dear City Council Members,
I am writing in support of the proposed dispensary planned for the corner of Mission and Laurel. It is not fair or just to deny a permit for this business when there is no consistent evidence either locally or nationally that its location is somehow harmful to the community. There are already laws in place to protect young people from purchasing cannabis. Let’s not slide down the slippery slope of trying to create a solution to a problem that does not exist.

Sincerely,
Michelle Massie, MD
Dana Massie
102 Bradley Dr.

Santa Cruz, 95060
31 Julia Wood
From: Rose Dooling <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 8:04 AM
To: City Council
Subject: WAMM dispensary
I am writing to show my support of the proposed WAMM dispensary at the former Emily's bakery location.

WAMM has been a valued member of our community for several decades and paved the way for medical marijuana access. This project met all the guidelines and was approved for the current location- please don't let fear mongering hinder all their hard work.

Thank you for your time,
Rose Dooling, lifetime Santa Cruz local
32 Julia Wood
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 11:41 AM
To: Rosemary Balsley
Subject: Message from KM_C654e
Attachments: WAMM.pdf

1 Julia Wood
From: Lori Quick <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 2:00 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Community Feedback
I am writing to ask you to approve the proposed dispensary at the former site of Emily's Bakery. Objections on the ground that it is too close to schools are ridiculous. It's probably more dangerous to have a 7-11 that sells alcohol near schools. Marijuana is now legal and used by countless people for medicinal as well as recreational purposes. A dispensary which sells marijuana responsibly, requiring identification and proof of age poses no danger to minors. You can be certain that minors who smoke or otherwise ingest marijuana do not buy it at dispensaries, but from street level dealers. This should be approved.

Sincerely,
Lori A. Quick
Santa Cruz, CA
2 Julia Wood
From: Zack Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 2:51 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Uphold Your Own Rules, Approve Hook Outlet/WAMM To the Santa Cruz City Council:

As a Santa Cruz Resident, I vehemently support The Hook Outlet’s and WAMM Phytotherapies’ proposed dispensary at 1129 Mission St. This project embodies responsible cannabis business pracঞces, bolsters our economy, and upli[s our most vulnerable ciঞzens –– all prioriঞes explicitly outlined in the city’s general plan.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Santa Cruz Resident
Sent from my iPhone
3 Julia Wood
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 3:14 PM
To: City Council
Subject: WAMM on Mission street
• Santa Cruz City Council:

Over the years WAMM has given at no charge medical cannabis to the sick, ill, dying.

Next Tuesday (May 14th) when you decided to break the boundary rules or keep them allowing WAMM on Mission street I want you to take a moment to reflect on the thousands of cancer patients angels who's spirits will be in the room with you.

Gary Poland
13880 Hwy 9
Boulder Creek ca 95006
(510)860-0583
5 Julia Wood
From: david volkland <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 4:18 PM
To: City Council
Subject: The Hook Santa Cruz
Greetings, City Council of Santa Cruz,
I am a staunch supporter of The Hook Santa Cruz obtaining an entitlement for an administrative use permit. I am deeply concerned about the city’s process, particularly the potential obstruction of a local business that has diligently met all local requirements. It is disheartening to witness a government that appears to be shifting the goalpost simply because it disagrees with the outcome of the game.

The Hook has been paying rent on the proposed location, 1129 Mission Street, since July 2023.

This property is appropriately zoned correctly and was initially approved by the city of Santa Cruz for Cannabis Retail. The applicant completed the AUP application's local license transfer and was deemed compliant. The applicant has paid all City of Santa Cruz fees and has complied with all requests.

This project has been an arduous, time-consuming, and financially demanding endeavor. After nearly a year of unwavering compliance, the applicant is now confronted with emergency legislation, further stalling the project’s progress and imposing an overwhelming financial burden. If the city council does choose to pass the moratorium, I strongly urge a provision that protects the applicant's interest and ensures that any changes do not disrupt the applicant’s application or entitlement process.

Respectfully
David Volkland
A resident of Santa Cruz since 2005
6 Julia Wood
From: Lesley Nickus <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 4:20 PM
To: City Council
Subject: RE: May 14 meeting
Hello,
I'm writing to submit a public comment for the May 14 meeting regarding the opening of WAMM Phytotherapies and the Hook project at 1129 Mission St, Santa Cruz, CA 95060.

My name is Lesley Nickus and I'm the executive producer of "Kind Conversations About Cannabis" a project that aims to shine a light on the compassion programs operating in California and the veterans, terminally ill, and others who benefit from the relief and community connection they offer.

Our crew spent time with Valerie and members of WAMM as they began meeting for the first time since the pandemic and have been developing a relationship with the organization for the better part of a year.

It seems there may be some confusion about the mission and purpose of these programs and I hope to provide what clarity I can in support of their Mission Street effort.

I created this short video to help shine a light on the value they bring to the community and the care with which they approach everything they do. I'd like it entered into the public record, please.

WAMM_EDIT_2MIN_V3.mp4
The linked image cannot
be displayed. The file may
have been mov ed,
renamed, or deleted.

Verify that the link points
to the correct file and
location.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Lesley Nickus
Scary Plants Media
scaryplants.com
7 Julia Wood
From: Lara Savino <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 4:39 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Uphold Your Own Rules, Approve Hook Outlet/WAMM To the Santa Cruz City Council:

As a Santa Cruz Resident, I vehemently support The Hook Outlet’s and WAMM Phytotherapies’ proposed dispensary at 1129 Mission St. This project embodies responsible cannabis business pracঞces, bolsters our economy, and upli[s our most vulnerable ciঞzens –– all prioriঞes explicitly outlined in the city’s general plan.

Furthermore, this business is a proven asset to Santa Cruz. They generate jobs, bolster our tax base, and acঞvely support local nonprofits. The Planning Commission’s recommendaঞon for approval underscores the project’s merit and compliance.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Santa Cruz Resident
8 Julia Wood
From: Terri Primavera <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 4:57 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Uphold Your Own Rules, Approve Hook Outlet/WAMM To the Santa Cruz City Council:

As a Santa Cruz Resident, I vehemently support The Hook Outlet’s and WAMM Phytotherapies’ proposed dispensary at 1129 Mission St. This project embodies responsible cannabis business pracঞces, bolsters our economy, and upli[s our most vulnerable ciঞzens –– all prioriঞes explicitly outlined in the city’s general plan.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Santa Cruz Resident
Sent from my iPhone
9 Julia Wood
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 6:37 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: Letter of Support for WAMM, for inclusion with the agenda packet and for consideration at the May 14 City Council Meeting
Attachments: Allen Hopper WAMM Support Letter to City Council 05-08-24.pdf Bonnie Bush
City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center St., Room 8, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Phone: 831-420-5035
Email:[email protected] Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com Begin forwarded message:

From: "M. Allen Hopper" <[email protected]>
Date: May 8, 2024 at 4:23:44 PM PDT
To: Fred Keeley <[email protected]>, Bonnie Bush <[email protected]> Subject: Letter of Support for WAMM, for inclusion with the agenda packet and for consideration at the May 14 City Council Meeting
Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
Valerie Corral, Ben Rice and Dana McRae suggested that I reach out to you in support of the proposed cannabis dispensary at the site of the former Emily’s Bakery on Mission and Laurel Streets. At their invitation, I intend to offer public comments at the Council’s upcoming public meeting on May 14 and would request that I be allowed additional time for my comments, for a total of 5 minutes, if that is possible.

I also respectfully request that the attached letter be entered into the public record as additional written testimony/comments and distributed to the Councilmembers in advance of the May 14 meeting.

Thank you.

Allen Hopper
Attorney at Law
1 Allen Hopper, Attorney at Law
3975 Manzanita Drive
San Jose, CA 95117
May 8, 2024
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center St, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
I write in support of the cannabis dispensary at the site of the former Emily’s Bakery on Mission and Laurel Streets, proposed in partnership with Valerie Corral and the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM). I intend to offer public comments at the Council’s upcoming public meeting on May 14 and respectfully request that this letter be entered into the public record as additional written testimony/comments and distributed to the Councilmembers.

The City’s strong support of WAMM before and after that litigation is well-documented.

The Discretion Afforded by Section 24.12.1300.4.B is Patterned After Early Versions of the County’s Cannabis Ordinance Intended to Protect WAMM.

To avoid vulnerability to litigation and potential City liability, City Ordinance Section

WAMM’s Partnership with The Hook is Appropriate and Necessary for WAMM’s Survival.

Respectfully,
Allen Hopper
1 Julia Wood
From: M. Allen Hopper <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 9:48 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: Letter of Support for WAMM, for inclusion with the agenda packet and for consideration at the May 14 City Council Meeting
Attachments: Allen Hopper WAMM Support Letter to City Council 05-08-24.pdf Dear Councilmembers and Staff,
I sent the below email and attached letter to the Mayor and Clerk yesterday, sending now to the "City Council" email as well just to be sure it is received and included in the agenda packet for the May 14 Council Meeting.

Thank you.
-Allen Hopper
Attorney at Law
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: M. Allen Hopper <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, May 8, 2024 at 4:23 PM
Subject: Letter of Support for WAMM, for inclusion with the agenda packet and for consideration at the May 14 City Council Meeting
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
Valerie Corral, Ben Rice and Dana McRae suggested that I reach out to you in support of the proposed cannabis dispensary at the site of the former Emily’s Bakery on Mission and Laurel Streets. At their invitation, I intend to offer public comments at the Council’s upcoming public meeting on May 14 and would request that I be allowed additional time for my comments, for a total of 5 minutes, if that is possible.

I also respectfully request that the attached letter be entered into the public record as additional written testimony/comments and distributed to the Councilmembers in advance of the May 14 meeting.

Thank you.

The City’s strong support of WAMM before and after that litigation is well-documented.

The Discretion Afforded by Section 24.12.1300.4.B is Patterned After Early Versions of the County’s Cannabis Ordinance Intended to Protect WAMM.

To avoid vulnerability to litigation and potential City liability, City Ordinance Section

WAMM’s Partnership with The Hook is Appropriate and Necessary for WAMM’s Survival.

Respectfully,
Allen Hopper
1 Julia Wood
From: Treehouse Team <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 12:15 PM
To: City Council
Subject: TO BE ENTERED INTO PUBLIC RECORD: These Individuals Stand With The Hook and WAMM Phytotherapies Against Unprecedented City Council Challenges Attachments: WAMM-Member-City-Council-Letters-5.9.24.pdf Attached is a PDF containing letters from members of WAMM Phytotherapies. Please enter them into the public record of the Santa Cruz City Council Meeting happening on Tuesday, May 14th. Thank you. --
Contact Information for Other Treehouse Staff
DISCLAIMER: This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.

Dear Santa Cruz City Council,
I have been with WAMM for well over 20 ye
`vAv'as c!iagnosec! `vAv'ith] 'Lupijs s]LE. Doctors ir[sis within the year. It was painful and scary but
l'm stl.ll here.

The fi.rst thing I notice was Val insisted that we follow the law to the letter. And we do. If our annual doctor recommendation expires, we come back AFTER it's renewed. Our goal has always been to work in unison with the police department and the community.

We take this seriously and Val and everybody else would never allow a child or anyone without a doctor's prescription.

I am so grateful for WAMM. I have never taken the pain pills the doctor offered. WAMM's medicine helps the pain enough to get my mind off it temporarily without the side effects of pain pills.

Which we no know these ruin peoples' lives.

Please con.sic!er this.

Janet Matulich
April 16 2oi7
Dear City coiincil,
My husband and I are going on to be 83 yrs old. I suffer from arrhriTis and him wil'h demenria . We both use Marijuana.

Him for sl'ress reduction, sleep, and pain.

JVLe for sleep and pain relief.

I also liave Two grand daughters who aHend Mission Hill, and SCHS.

Am I worried they will purchase products from The hook? If lhey did, could they open the package??
NO!
Thank you,
Harry and SLJsan Unger
April,20Z4
Dear council,
I am writing you about the school and the Hook, and WalrLm.

This is an absolute no brainer:

The law is COO feet
The building is 850 feet
PERIOD! The law is the law.

D® the right thing -They are not the problem with the schools Thands
I. Jare Russeu
Tax payer in Santa Cruz
Dearest City Counsel,
I am writing you in support of the new dispensary on Mission Street.

I understand the school has issues with this.

This business serves most of the poor and sick in our community, And has been for 25+ yrs.

I have used their service while going thro Chemo.

They are not just about Marijuana!
They help with knowledge and info, eating, and diets, current events in our town, Among many other services.

With the prices of medication going up daily this is a necessary service, lt helps people who are on pharmaceuticals for anxiety, cancer ,aids seizers, along with many, many other illnesses.

Please continue to do the right thing!
The school needs to put more education regarding all drugs. Marijuana is the least of them.

ThaLnk you for your time,
Reverend Ray Miller
April 9,2024
mEHEEEIEEmE[HEEEEHHEEEEl[HIE|E|EIEEE]|ililiiiii|ii||ilHit whom it may concern:

Council:
y name is Ethan I graduated from SCHS in 1 989. Back then there were plenty of options when it came to pot and ohol. It is easily accessible for high school students. ere were no dispensaries charging enormous prices for their product. Nor did you have to have an I.D. e Hook has a spotless reputation for following the law. I have never seen anyone underage in any of their pensaries.
amm has an even better rep in this town. Not only for medication, but help with doctors, food, illnesses, and mradery among the patients. Help with death and dying, like hospice. ey are the birth of medical Marijuana. Santa Cruz has always been known for Marijuana. ey do an essential service to the neediest of people in this town. ndersta.nd that both parties have put all their eggs in this basket and if it does work out there are no other places for in.
rjously doubt and high school student is going to all the trouble to get a fake i . to buy pot. Totally ridiculous.
e facts are the facts. Please do the right thing and allow them to access this propert)/.

Ethan Fitzhenry
ncerned citizen
ear City Counsel,
would Like to speak about the proposed dispensary on Mission treet.
do understand that the schools need to educate the children in rug abuse and the medical uses ol: drugs.
thought when the Lottery money came in it was supposed to go education.
his either did not happen or the funds have been misused. don't think either side is wrong, but to stop a businessman, and parent with excellent references from his Landlords, and the usiness bureau, the Santa Cruz Police, and Many, many private itizens in this town is wrong.
specially when he has bent over backwards to work with
chools.
he schools on the other hand, under pay the workers at the ottom and are not educating the children for the real world. hey can't keep drugs off their campuses and need to put the Lame somewhere.
hey make up stories about kids and I.D.s in the dispensaries . how graphs that mean nothing.
hey are not experts on Marijuana or any other drugs.
erhaps they should pay mr. Berryessa and Ms. Corral to teach e facts about Marijuana, to the children.
ith declining enrollment, the have much work to do, instead of orrying about something so small.
arLene Ftoberts
oncerned citizen.
ril 12th 2024
e Hook and Wamm are an excellent business for Emilies bakery. th have excellent references in this town, from their landlords to the police.

Ierie Corral is an expert not only on Marijuana, but many other drugs, pharmaceuticals , d their affects.
amm deals with death and dying under her watchful eyes. in a supporter of Wamm and have been for years.
hink the dispensary will be a fabulous edition to the Westside. ease follow the law and don't change midstream. Let them continue to serve those who ed it the most.
urs Truly Rodney Gandy
1 Julia Wood
From: Larry Bernstein <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 12:45 PM
To: City Council
Subject: WAMM
Dear City Council members,
I am writing this email to support WAMM and asking you to approve the dispensary permit for WAMM,
Please do not overturn the city map that approves the permit for WAMM's dispensary.

WAMM has been a positive resource for Santa Cruz county and we need to support this valuable community resource.

All the Best
Larry Bernstein
2 Julia Wood
From: Wayne Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 4:20 PM
To: City Council
Subject: The Hook Santa Cruz proposed 2000 feet from school.

Cannabis Dispensary
Addressing the 2000 Feet Buffer for The Hook Santa Cruz A open letter in defense of the location of cannabis dispensaries From Wayne Miller, Santa Cruz Designer since 1978
First we must acknowledge that cannabis was demonized by racial bigots 100 years ago because it was popular with black jazz musicians and Mexicans.

George Washington grew, cannabis as a drug, per a letter to his brother during the revolutionary war.

We now know conclusively it is a very safe drug.

To that point the US DEA has moved to reclassify cannabis from a class 1 drug to a class 3 drug.

This should greatly diminish the perceived danger of its use.

No one has ever died by ingesting cannabis in any form.

It’s certainly the perceived horror of children passing by it going to and from school.

No children are allowed to enter a cannabis shop.

No one under 21 is allowed.

On the other hand a liquor store does not prohibit children from entering and buying non-alcoholic drinks.

Alcohol, which can cause death by its ingestion, is not considered enough of a problem to require a 2000 feet buffer.

The dispensary in dispute is in a commercial district on one of the busiest streets in town.

Being only a bit cynical I’d say it’s more dangerous for the kids to have to cross Mission St on the way to and from school than passing a cannabis shop.

If you are still reading I appreciate it, Thank You.

4 Julia Wood
From: info at wamm <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 5:07 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Letter of support to be added to public record Attachments: Rick Cook Letter.pdf
Hello,
Please add this letter from a WAMM Phyto volunteer to the public record on behalf of WAMM Phytotherapies and the Hook Outlet's appeal hearing coming up on May 14th.

Thank you so much,
--
Phoenyx Nist-Ferrare
Administrative Compassionate Care Coordinator 퓂
Office Hours: Monday & Wednesday 11:00 am - 5:00pm
WAMM Phytotherapies contact information
Mailing address: P.O. Box 124 Davenport, CA 95017
Phone number: (831) 425 - 0580
Email address: [email protected]
Urgent: We need your support to continue to operate!
Our Website
WAMM Phytotherapies is a donation based organization, and is only able to continue operations due to the generosity of others. If you would like to support us please click on our Venmo link: WAMM Phyto Venmo Thank you very much!

1 Julia Wood
From: Bayley Logan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 5:57 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Urging Approval for Legal, Local Small Business at 1129 Mission St Urging Approval for WAMM Phytotherapies’ & The Hook Dispensary at 1129 Mission St Dear Members of the Santa Cruz City Council,
As a proud resident of Santa Cruz County, I am writing to express my wholehearted support for The Hook Outlet's and WAMM Phytotherapies' proposed dispensary at 1129 Mission Street. This initiative is a testament to fair and responsible cannabis business practices, supports our local economy, and assists our most vulnerable citizens—all of which align with the priorities set forth in our city’s general plan.

The collaboration between The Hook Outlet and WAMM—a respected pioneer in medical cannabis— ensures that compassionate care continues to be accessible here. For over three decades, WAMM has generously provided free medicine to our community's critically ill. To deny this dispensary, which complies fully with zoning laws, would significantly and permanently hinder their commendable efforts to help those in dire need.

The Hook Outlet sets a high standard for regulatory compliance. Their comprehensive security measures, low-profile storefront design and educational initiatives through www.safecannabis.net all reflect their commitment to community health and safety.

Moreover, this business has proven to be a valuable asset to our community. It creates jobs, enhances our tax revenue, and actively supports local nonprofits. The Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve this project further confirms its value and adherence to regulatory standards.

Rejecting this application, despite widespread community support and compliance with all guidelines, would not only erode trust in our local governance but also discourage future investment in our city by signaling that regulatory goals are unpredictably shifting.

I urge the City Council to maintain its dedication to transparency and fairness by approving The Hook Outlet and WAMM’s application. Failing to do so could establish a concerning precedent with extensive negative implications.

Respectfully,
Bayley Logan
2 Julia Wood
From: Ralph Bpwman <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 6:08 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Uphold Your Own Rules, Approve Hook Outlet/WAMM To the Santa Cruz City Council:

As a Santa Cruz Resident, I vehemently support The Hook Outlet’s and WAMM Phytotherapies’ proposed dispensary at 1129 Mission St. This project embodies responsible cannabis business pracঞces, bolsters our economy, and upli[s our most vulnerable ciঞzens –– all prioriঞes explicitly outlined in the city’s general plan.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Santa Cruz Resident
Sent from my iPhone
3 Julia Wood
From: Jenna Gallant <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 6:52 PM
To: City Council
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - for the 5/14 Santa Cruz City Council Meeting Please enter the following into public record for the Tuesday, May 14 Santa Cruz City Council Meeting:
--------------------------------------------
Hello City Council of Santa Cruz,
I am writing to you once again to voice that I am in opposition to the appeal brought against the applicant KGBB DBA The Hook Santa Cruz by the small, but vocal group of well-meaning but horribly misinformed and undereducated parents and teachers.

The proposed business at 1129 Mission Street has played by the rules and followed the law to the letter. They have made every effort to work with the Santa Cruz High School School Board (who made the initial appeal), the parents and teachers (who have made the current appeal), and the City Council members who have also voiced their concerns.

After spending my own time reading the appeal submitted to the City Council on 3.14.24, and doing my own research on the points made by those concerned parents and teachers, I have come to the conclusion that their argument is misinformed at best, sinister at worst.

We are (or should be) all on the same page that youth should not be consuming cannabis recreationally, there is no argument there. Studies have shown that cannabis can be potentially dangerous for developing neurotypical brains, same as pharmaceuticals, alcohol, and nicotine products.

As a former educator (and former teenager) myself, I know well that teens are creative enough to get their hands on whatever drugs, alcohol, nicotine products, etc. that they want. As someone who utilizes legal dispensaries here in Santa Cruz, I also know that youth are not sourcing their cannabis from legal dispensaries. The regulations are too strict, and the risk is too big for dispensaries to sell to underage folk. All transactions in dispensaries are required to be on camera and stored for a minimum of 90 days, they use black lights and scanners on IDs, they educate their staff on what fake IDs look like, and have on site security. The consequence of selling to an underage person is revocation of your cannabis retail license, which is obviously way too high of a risk for any dispensary to take. Especially in an industry where everyone seems to literally just be squeaking by from being over taxed while still, despite it being a legal industry, being treated like criminals as opposed to business owners.

Another point I would like to make is that in the City of Santa Cruz, the excise tax + sales tax on cannabis is ~27%. Sorry, but no traditional (black) market drug dealer I've ever met or heard of pays taxes when sourcing their product. That's just not happening. Teens buying cannabis are buying cannabis sourced from the traditional (black) market, which is far more dangerous, unregulated, untested, and can feasibly contain anything from pesticides to fentanyl. And/or they're taking 4 cannabis from their parents, older siblings, etc., which is the same way many teens source pharmaceuticals, alcohol, and nicotine products. A more effective way to mitigate teen cannabis use, rather than prevent a legal business from opening, would be for parents to keep their substances locked up and have open, honest, and transparent conversations with their children.

The Hook Outlet has publicly stated their plans to raise the age of who they will sell to, even though they do not legally have to, to 19, so that parents would be less worried. They have altered their building plans to conceal the contents of the shop, so that no one walking by will see the inside or the business, or what they sell. They have altered their signage plans, and limited it to one sign with the name of their business and a green cross. If this isn't proof of business owners doing everything they can to work with the concerns of the community, I don't know what is. We should be so lucky to have such a community-minded & locally owned business move into our neighborhood.

I haven't even yet mentioned the fact that they are partnering with WAMM Phytotherapies- who, if you don't know your history, is the organization founded and led by Val Corral that legally provides free medicinal cannabis to members in our community who have terminal or chronic illnesses. The work she and that organization have done to improve the quality of life of our fellow humans here in Santa Cruz is immense, impactful, and absolutely must continue. In a country where healthcare is so incredibly f*cked up, we need organizations like WAMM Phytotherapies to pick up where the systems fail.

When someone who has been addicted to opiates in their life needs treatment for pain, where can they turn if not WAMM? When someone who has tried everything to find something to help with their epileptic seizures, and nothing has worked until cannabis, where can they turn if not WAMM? These are two examples of hundreds that exist in our community. Legal (and therefore regulated, tested, and safe) cannabis is expensive and heavily taxed. WAMM Phytotherapies works through Senate Bill 34 to provide free of cost legal cannabis to patients who need it. They can only do this through legal dispensaries. They need a location on the Westside of Santa Cruz for the people with disabilities that live there. The Hook Outlet at 1129 Mission Street is that location.

In conclusion, please don't let the War On Drugs era scare tactics, misinformation, and fear mongering of this appeal fool you. Allow the Hook Outlet and WAMM Phytotherapies to open their legal dispensary at 1129 Mission Street.

Thank you again for your time and consideration, I hope you do what is logical and right.

Sincerely,
J. Gallant
Santa Cruz resident and engaged community member since 2017 5 Julia Wood
From: Ben Rice <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 10:34 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Letter from Assembly member Gail Pellerin
Attachments: Assembly member Pellerin letter to Council.docx May 8, 2024
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center St, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
I write to express my strong support for the proposed cannabis dispensary at the site of the former Emily’s Bakery on Mission and Laurel Streets. This project, in partnership with Valerie Corral and the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), offers a unique opportunity to continue providing crucial services to our community.

Valerie Corral is a highly respected leader in medical marijuana advocacy, and I have worked with her on initiatives like the United Way’s Compassionate Use Initiative and Santa Cruz County's Community Prevention Partners. For more than 30 years, WAMM has provided compassionate care to individuals with chronic or terminal illnesses, offering services at low or no cost. This dispensary will continue this vital legacy and aims to support more than 200 members by the end of 2024.

I urge the Council to approve this dispensary, which will ensure that those most in need receive the care and support they deserve while upholding public safety and responsible business practices.

Sincerely,
Gail Pellerin
Assemblymember, District 28
GP:mm
1 Lindsay Nelson
From: Jackie <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 8:09 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Fw: Maxines letter
Dear City Counsel:

My name is Maxine Miller. I have been the Property manager of The Viking Hall on Plymouth Street here in Santa Cruz.

Valerie and the people of Wamm rented the hall once a week, sometimes more for over a decade.

They always paid on time.

They always left the hall clean. Always cleaner than they found it. Even the outside.

They actually helped our group on many projects at the hall.

In ten plus years, we Never got one complaint of noise, or any problem from their group.

They are respectful, and considerate.

There are many children and families on button street, Grant Street, and in the area in general.

Not once was there an issue regarding Marijuana, with children or adults. don't even think anyone knew they were there. Not even the Nar canon group which had breakfast the day after the Wamm meetings in the Hall. It was always clean and ready for them.

We were very sorry with the new regulations, and marijuana becoming legal, our building did not fit the cities rules.

I understand they have been having a hard time to get a place. This is a shame. this is one of the best groups we ever had the pleasure of working with.

I am hoping the counsel will give them this new place or find one suitable for them.

It is a shame to think this group would have to stop the wonderful work they do, over a few feet of space.

Please let me say they are top notch!
Maxine Miller
Viking Hall manager
2 AOL Mail Stationery
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Jackie <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2024 at 05:36:05 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Maxines letter
Dear City Counsel:

My name is Maxine Miller. I have been the Property manager of The Viking Hall on Plymouth Street here in Santa Cruz.

Valerie and the people of Wamm rented the hall once a week ,sometimes more for over a decade.

They always paid on time.

They always left the hall clean. Always cleaner than they found it. Even the outside.

They actually helped our group on many projects at the hall.

In ten plus years ,we Never got one complaint of noise, or any problem from their group.

They are respectful, and considerate.

There are many children and families on button street, Grant Street, and in the area in general.

Not once was there an issue regarding Marijuana, with children or adults. don't even think anyone knew they were there. Not even the Narcanon group which had breakfast the day after the Wamm meetings in the Hall.

We were very sorry with the new regulations, and marijuana becoming legal, our building did not fit the cities rules.

I understand they have been having a hard time to get a place. This is a shame. this is one of the best groups we ever had the pleasure of working with.

I am hoping the counsel will give them this new place or find one suitable for them.

It is a shame to think this group would have to stop the wonderful work they do, over a few feet of space.

Please let me say they are top notch!
Maxine Miller
Viking Hall manager
3 Lindsay Nelson
From: Jackie <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 8:14 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Re: Emily"s Bakery building
Thu, May 9 at 6:22 PM
Dear Counsel, May 9,2024
It is to my serious anxiety to have to write this letter.

I have been with Wamm for 20 plus years. I did not use marijuana at the time I started but was caring for a member. In that time, I have done caregiving, gardening, Baking, volunteering hospice work, Speakers, panels, and board of directors and been an advocate for all these years.

I have been Married for 17yrs to a Wamm member/ patient.

During covid was able to have Wamm help me thro Beast Cancer, involving a double Mastectomy, tubes and ovaries removed, and 6 months of Chemo.

Without the help of Wamm members and the medication, I could not have have beaten Cancer, 2yrs clean.

Wamm has been searching for a perminate home since Marijuana became legal.

Most places cannot take Wamm due to the insurance. Altho we have excellent references, everywhere we have been. We do nothing wrong. People have a stigma surrounding Marijuana. this is false.

I believe if there was an issue with children and Marijuana, you would have heard about it long before this.

There is NO evidence that we have at all influenced, or tempted to give children illegal Marijuana or anything else.

The Santa Cruz police have told me they appreciate Wamm work because it keeps patients off the street buying Pot. Also helps keep people from having anxiety, or panic attacks in public. not to mention all the terminal patients they help.

I also have a daughter who suffers from Cer able Pasley, Wamm also helps with this.

I raised two children who graduated from Santa Cruz High. One is a computer tech, living in Mazatlán, and the other is finishing at Cabrillo and transferring over to UCSC soon.

The notion that kids will buy vape or any other thing is ridiculous. The kids can buy vapes or liquor, many places up and down Mission Street.

The school has and ,have had a marijuana problem, since my kids went there. To even suggest that the dispensary, will have any effect on them is stupid.

They have had a marijuana, alcohol problem always. Kids will experiment, no matter what.

How do I know?
Well, I retired from the schools about 7 yrs. ago. after 25yrs, of being thousands of children's lunch lady in this city. 4 I am more worried about what these kids get on the mall, or the park. Two kids we know have overdosed on Fentanyl, purchased on the mall,
not knowing what they were getting.

Education begins at home.

Santa Cruz has always seen the Value in Wamm's Work. please follow the law, do the correct thing.

Allow Wamm to survive, with the help of the Hook.

Thank you,
Mrs Jackie Russell
5 Lindsay Nelson
From: Jackie <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 8:16 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Re: Save Wamm
• May 9,2024
Dear council Member:

I am writing because I am concerned about the school districts opposition to the Hook and Wamm Phytotherapies proposed new place in the old Emily's building.

I did attend the previous meetings regarding this issue The school district had many speakers and graphs showing their reasons for opposing to this site. they had parents speak, they had doctors, some school Nurses, and the superintendent, somehow the even got students to speak.

One of the concerns was vapes which the kids can currently buy from the gas station or the cigarette store in the Palm Plaza.

They said there is currently a problem in the school with Marijuana. which the children can easily access cheaper than in a dispensary (No taxes) and requires no I.D. down on the mall or in the park.

Although much of their presentation was not factual, and the graphs were not correct, we sat and listened.

When they completed their presentation, Bryce got up and gave one of the best presentations, I have ever seen for why this was legal, and important to not only him, but also Wamm Therapies, and the patients who could access their medicine here.

To every argument the school district had, he had factual information, to rebut all of their, arguments against this business.

He is not only a businessman He is a parent, and also lives in the neighborhood.

He has bent over backwards to please the school district, from redoing the outside of the building, to make it less cannabis looking, to upping the age to enter. He is not 600 hundred feet from the school, but 850 feet from the school.

Valerie Corral who is working with him, has been working to in the schools with the schools for years, education is the key.

We are offering more of this.
6 The Santa Cruz Police even got up and gave him an excellent review, stating he has never had any incidents in his other dispensaries, since they had been open. they also stated that there is NO evidence to show kids are getting ID's or medical cards for dispensaries.

The best was seeing Emily Give both Bryce and Val and outstanding review and stated they could not get better people in there than them.

The reason this being so important, is because since it became Legal, Wamm has been trying to open and have a place to meet and dispense to patients. Valerie has personally been funding this for the patients. If this does not happen it will be the end of Wamm. We have complied with every regulation and rule and still can't open. Time has run out.

With the rules being so strict, this spot is the only one in town, that they could meet all the regulations.

Bryce is a sharp Businessman. He checked all the Boxes, and requirements, not once, but twice, using all his money from the other places to make this happen. knowing that this is Wamms last shot.

How is this fair to him or Wamm. They have done nothing wrong. Even offering more. Not seeing any problem with the school, as he is way over compliance.

This spot is really better for our patients, easy access from the bus. Many terminal patients are kids or have kids
.

I hear the district wants to change the distance. That fine to discuss but not in this case. Would that make all dispensaries out of compliance? How is this right? When these rules were made, they were well thought out, by many people who were quite knowledgeable and have been working well.

I don't think the district, or anyone else has the right to change these laws. to suit themselves.

Thank you for serving our community. the school district does not run this city, the citizens do, the Handi capped, the sick, the ones who need a compassionate ear, and a break from chemo. The city has always been supportive, and grateful for the work being done by Wamm and Medical Marijuana. .

This is a Santa Cruz rooted Organization, Non-profit, known all over the world and well Respected.

For 30 yrs.

Don't let this end Wamm. Everyday someone else needs our help. I am hoping you will see how wrong it is if they are not allowed to open.

Yours truly,
7 Mrs J Fitzhenry
Marijuana advocate
Wamm phytotherapies board member
Community member
Breast Cancer survivor
Beachflatbetty @ Aol.com

o
o
o
o
• Reply
• ,
• Reply All
• or
• Forward
8 Lindsay Nelson
From: Bryce Berryessa <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 9:56 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Ryan Bane; Bonnie Bush
Subject: City Council Meeting Submission 5/14/24
Attachments: SKM_C450i24051009390.pdf; Emily Reilly.pdf; LEOPOLD - Support letter for 1129 MIssion.docx Please see the attached for inclusion in the agenda packet.

Thank you,
Bryce Berryessa

From: Emily Reilly [email protected]
Subject: support of proposed use 1129 Mission Street
Date: March 1, 2024 at 12:57PM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Dear Planning Commission and City Staff,
Thank you for your ongoing work.

I wholeheartedly support The Hook Outlet’s request to open their business at 1129 Mission St.

I rented that space for over 40 years and learned about The Hook’s business practices and relationships during the transition process.

I was impressed with Bryce and Kyle, with their consistent responsible behavior and pleased to witness their serious attention to our local ordinances and processes.

It was great to work with people who had done their due diligence, who knew the rules and were ready to commit their time, money and energy to their project and our community.

They were also sensitive to my needs and open and communicative with our landlord as well.

I was encouraged to learn of their relationship with Valerie Corral, whom I have known and worked with in various endeavors over the past 30 years, and trust without reservation.

Sincerely,
Emily Reilly
219 California Street
818-6490, call or text anytime
John Leopold
3435 Gross Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95062 | 831-566-0122 | john@friendsofjohnleopold RE: Support for WAMM Phytotherapies and The Hook Dispensary at 1129 Mission St.

I recommend that you approve the application for the WAMM/Hook store.

Sincerely,
1 Rosemary Balsley
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 7:54 AM
To: Rosemary Balsley
Subject: FW: May 14 Testimony
From: Arnold Leff, M.D. <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 12:10 PM
To: Rosemary Balsley <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: May 14 Testimony
Sorry. Having computer problems. Here it is:

To Mayor Keeley and City Council:

I am planning to testify on behalf of WAMM on May 14th. Following is a partial resume of my relevant experience. *City of Cincinnati drug abuse coordinator and later Commissioner of Health *Deputy Associate Director, White House Drug Abuse Office *Drug Abuse Consultant, Deputy Secretary of Defense
*Health Services Director, Contra Costa County
*Retired Santa Cruz Health Officer and Registered Environmental Health Specialist and Medical Director, Santa Cruz County Jail
*Previous Member, State of California's Cannabis Bureau advisory committee *Private Medical Practice in Santa Cruz specializing in HIV medicine, hospice and palliative care, geriatrics and family medicine (certified in all; retired)
*Previous Associate Medical Director, Santa Cruz Methadone Maintenance Program In addition, I have held the following faculty appointments:

Clinical Professor of Medicine, Stanford
Associate Professor, Family Medicine, University of California Assistant Professor of Pharmacology and Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati I have served the city as Chair of the former Citizens Police Review Board as well as in my capacity as the Health Officer and Environmental Health Director
Arnold Sterne Leff, M.D.
831 345-2009
Confidentiality Notice
This messagecontains information that may be confidential and privileged under the law. Unless you are the addressee (or otherwise legally authorized person) you may not use, copy, or otherwisedisclose to anyone the contents of this message or any of its attachments.Please call 831 345-2009 should you receive this in error.
9 Lindsay Nelson
From: Ben Rice <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 12:44 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Arnold Leff MD; Valerie Leveroni Corral; Bryce Berryessa Subject: [CAUTION: Verify Sender Before Opening!] materials for council members and agenda item re.

WAMM 5-14-24
Attachments: Osteoarthritis Patients Report Sustained Benefits .docx; Societal Impacts of Cannabis Dispensaries.docx; jamapsychiatry_anderson_2024_ld_240003_1713555797.80474.pdf; frequent cannabis use dn lead to apathy.docx; JAMA Psychiatry.docx; Frequent chronic use study 2024- chronic-cannabis-use-in-everyday-life-emotional-motivational-and-self-regulatory-effects-of.pdf Hello, please attach this as part of the WAMM materials. I am providing it on behalf of a witness for the Tuesday meeting, Dr. Arnie Leff.

Study: Osteoarthritis Patients Report
Sustained Benefits From Cannabis • BY NORML
• POSTED ON MAY 2, 2024
London, United Kingdom: Patients diagnosed with osteoarthritis report pain-specific improvements following their use of medical cannabis preparations, according to observational data published in the Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy.

British researchers assessed the use of cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs) consisting of either flower or oil extracts in a cohort of osteoarthritis patients enrolled in the UK Medical Cannabis Registry. (Since 2018, British specialists have been permitted to prescribe cannabis-based medicinal products to patients unresponsive to conventional medications.) Researchers assessed changes in patient-reported outcomes measures over a one-year period.

Patients reported symptom improvements at one-month, three-months, six-months, and at one-year.
“Commencement of CBMP treatment was associated with reductions in pain-specific PROMs [patient-reported outcome measures] at all time points in patients with osteoarthritis,” researchers reported. Patients also reported improved sleep. Contrary to the results of several other studies, patients prescribed opioids did not decrease their opioid intake following their initiation of medical cannabis.

Investigators documented few serious side-effects associated with cannabis. “AEs [adverse events] were mainly mild or moderate in severity,” they wrote. “Fatigue was the most common AE in this study.”
The study’s authors concluded: “These results suggest an improvement in pain-related outcomes for patients with osteoarthritis following the initiation of CBMP treatment.

Furthermore, there was an improvement in general HRQoL [health-related quality of life] metrics across the follow-up period. CBMPs also appeared to be well-tolerated at 12-month follow-up. … Hence, this study supports the development of RCTs [randomized clinical trials] for CBMP use in osteoarthritis.”
Other studies assessing the use of cannabis products in patients enrolled in the UK Cannabis Registry have reported them to be effective for those suffering from chronic pain, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, depression, migraine, inflammatory bowel disease, and other afflictions.

Full text of the study, “Assessment of clinical outcomes in patients with osteoarthritis: Analysis from the UK Medical Cannabis Registry,” appears in the Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy. Additional information on cannabis and arthritis is available from NORML’s publication, Clinical Applications for Cannabis & Cannabinoids. 1 Societal Impacts of Cannabis
Dispensaries/Retailers
Retail cannabis facilities are not positively associated with increased criminality • “Many North American jurisdictions have legalized the operation of recreational marijuana dispensaries. A common concern is that dispensaries may contribute to local crime. … The random assignment of recreational marijuana retail licenses in Washington State provides a unique opportunity to identify the causal effect of dispensary openings on local crime. … Combining lottery data with detailed geocoded crime data, we estimate that the presence of a dispensary has no significant impact on local crime in the average neighborhood.” The impact of recreational marijuana dispensaries on crime: evidence from a lottery experiment, The Annals of Regional Science, 2023
• “This paper studies the effects of marijuana legalization on neighborhood crime and documents the patterns in retail dispensary locations over time using detailed micro-level data from Denver, Colorado. … The results imply that an additional dispensary in a neighborhood leads to a reduction of 17 crimes per month per 10,000 residents, which corresponds to roughly a 19 percent decline relative to the average crime rate over the sample period. … Overall, our results suggest that dispensaries cause an overall reduction in crime in neighborhoods, with no evidence of spillovers to surrounding neighborhoods. … Our results are consistent with theories that predict that marijuana legalization will displace illicit criminal organizations and decrease crime through changes in security behaviors or substitution toward more harmful substances. … Lastly, there is no evidence that increased marijuana use itself results in additional crime.”
Not in my backyard? Not so fast. The effect of marijuana legalization on neighborhood crime, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 2019
• “The objective of this study is to investigate whether a particular element of MMLs, namely allowance for dispensaries, affects local crime and other indicators of marijuana misuse. We find no evidence that ordinances allowing for marijuana dispensaries lead to an increase in crime. In fact, we see some evidence of a reduction in property crime. … Our study appears to reinforce the conclusions from other studies that fail to find an increase in the type of crime predicted by law enforcement. We find no effects on burglary, robberies, or assaults, which are the types of crimes one would expect if dispensaries were prime targets as a result of their holding large amounts of cash. … Our findings indicate that policymakers should be careful in how they regulate the presence of dispensaries, while not jumping to the conclusion that dispensaries are clearly crime generating hot-spots. … Our findings suggest that it is possible to regulate these markets and find a common ground between safety and access to medical marijuana.”
High on Crime? Exploring the Effects of Marijuana Dispensary Laws on Crime in California Counties, IZA Institute of Labor Economics Discussion Paper Series, May 2018 2 ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
By contrast, dispensary closures are associated with increases in crime • “The results presented above show that temporary dispensary closures increase crime in the short-run. … Analyzing medical marijuana dispensary closures in the City of Los Angeles, we find no support for the idea that closing dispensaries reduces crime. Rather, temporary closures deter some types of Part I crime. … Our findings have direct policy implications for regulating marijuana sales in the U.S. They imply that dispensary closures, and potentially the closure of other types of retails establishments, exert a significant negative externality in terms of neighborhood criminality. A quick back of the envelope cost calculation using the change in larceny theft at 1/3 of a mile and crime costs … suggests that an open dispensary provides over $30,000 per year in social benefit in terms of larcenies prevented.” Going to pot: The impact of dispensary closures on crime. Journal of Urban Economics, 2017 Retail cannabis facilities are associated with rising housing values • “This study finds a positive relationship between the decision to allow cannabis-related businesses and home prices. For example, we find that the average home sale price increased by 1.6% in municipalities that allowed cannabis-related businesses compared to municipalities that did not allow these businesses, which is equivalent to a $6,366 increase for the average property in our data. … In terms of policy recommendations, our results suggest state and local policymakers can be cautiously optimistic about the short-run impacts of allowing cannabis-related businesses in their jurisdictions.” The Determinants and Impacts of Allowing Cannabis Businesses: Evidence from New Jersey Municipalities, Rutgers New Jersey State Policy Lab, September 2022
• “To learn how marijuana legalization may impact real estate, we used publicly available data from Zillow and the U.S. Census, among other sources, to explore the relationships between home values, marijuana legalization, dispensaries, and tax revenue. We used multiple regression analyses to model current trends and predict future patterns. … Between April 2017 and April 2021, property values rose $17,113 more in states where recreational marijuana is legal, compared to states where marijuana is illegal or limited to medicinal use. … We found that cities with more dispensaries are positively correlated with higher home values, suggesting legalization boosts jobs and economic growth. … With each new dispensary a city adds, property values increase by $519. … As more states legalize marijuana, there is strong evidence that legalization drives higher property values — particularly in areas that allow recreational marijuana and welcome retail dispensaries. … These investments can improve quality of life in communities across the nation while attracting tourism and new residents who drive real estate demand.” Clever Real Estate: Data Science, “2021 Study: How Legalizing Recreational Marijuana Impacts Homes Values,” July 12, 2021
• “We evaluate the effect of medical and recreational dispensary openings on housing prices in Denver, Colorado. Using an event study approach, we find that the introduction of a new dispensary within a half‐mile radius of a new home increases home prices by approximately 3 7.7 percent on average. The effect diminishes for homes further from new dispensaries but is consistent over time. Our results provide important and timely empirical evidence on the socioeconomic impacts of marijuana legalization.”
The effect of marijuana dispensary openings on housing prices, Contemporary Economic Policy, 2018 • “In this paper we contribute to the debate on the impacts of recreational marijuana legalization on local communities by examining the effects of retail marijuana stores on nearby house prices in Denver, Colorado. … Using a difference-in-differences model, we compare houses that are in close proximity to a retail conversion to those that are slightly farther away from a retail conversion before and after the legalization of recreational sales.

We find that after the law went into effect at the end of 2013, single family residences close to a retail conversion (within 0.1 miles) increased in value by approximately 8.4% relative to houses that are located slightly farther from a conversion (between 0.1 miles and 0.25 miles) in 2014 compared to the previous year.”
Contact high: The external effects of retail marijuana establishments on house prices, Real Estate Economics, 2017
• “Does legalizing retail marijuana generate more benefits than costs? This paper addresses this question by measuring the benefits and costs that are capitalized into housing values.

We exploit the time-series and cross-sectional variations in the adoption of Colorado’s municipality retail marijuana laws (RMLs) and examine the effect on housing values with a difference-in-differences strategy. Our estimates show that the legalization leads to an average 6 percent increase in housing values, indicating that the capitalized benefits outweigh the costs. … In conclusion, this paper provides convincing causal evidence that legalizing retail marijuana generates net benefits, as measured through the housing market.” The effect of legalizing retail marijuana on housing values: Evidence from Colorado, University of Mississippi working paper series, 2016
Dispensary clientele tend to be older, value access to specific strains of cannabis, and tend to require greater quantities of cannabis to treat their therapeutic condition
• “Regarding age, respondents who used dispensaries were older than those not using dispensaries, perhaps reflecting that services that these dispensaries provide, such as storefront access and personalized service, may be particularly appealing to older adults. … A larger proportion of dispensary clients considered access to their preferred strain to be important than those not using dispensaries. … With regard to cannabis use, dispensary users were more likely to use larger amounts of cannabis. … [D]ispensaries were widely used and well rated by respondents. Given this high level of endorsement by patients, future regulations should consider including storefront dispensaries as an authorized source of cannabis for therapeutic purposes.”
Are dispensaries indispensable? Patient experiences and access to cannabis from medical cannabis dispensaries in Canada. International Journal on Drug Policy, 2017 4 The prevalence of cannabis dispensaries is not positively associated with increased teen use
• “We analyzed if living in a ZIP code with a dispensary (ZCWD) was associated with adolescent cannabis use. Dispensary ZIP codes from public records were matched to selfreported ZIP codes on the Illinois Youth Survey (IYS). We compared past 30-day and pastyear cannabis use among youth living in a ZCWD and not living in a ZCWD. … Cannabis use was significantly lower among 10th and 12th graders living in a ZCWD.” Journal of Cannabis Research, Density of medical and recreational cannabis outlets: racial/ethnic differences in the association with young adult intentions to use cannabis, e-cigarattes, and cannabis mixed with tobacco/nicotine, 2021
• “This is the first study to simultaneously examine the density of both MCDs [medical cannabis dispensaries] and RCRs [recreational cannabis retailers] around young adults’ homes and associations with future intentions to use cannabis, including the co-use of cannabis with tobacco/nicotine. Our results suggest that young adults who lived in an area with a greater density of any type of outlet were not significantly more likely to report stronger intentions to use cannabis, e-cigarettes, or cannabis mixed with tobacco/nicotine in the future.”
Adolescent cannabis use among youth in zip codes with medical dispensaries, Cannabis, 2023 • “This natural-experimental study used state Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) data collected from participants in grades 9-12 from 1991 to 2015 in 46 states (N = 1,091,723).

Taking advantage of heterogeneity across states in MML [medical marijuana law] status and MML dispensary design, difference-in-difference estimates compared states with enacted MMLs/dispensaries to non-MML/dispensaries states. … This study found no evidence between 1991 and 2015 of increases in adolescents reporting past 30-day marijuana use or heavy marijuana use associated with state MML enactment or operational MML dispensaries.”
Medical marijuana laws (MMLs) and dispensary provisions not associated with higher odds of adolescent marijuana or heavy marijuana use: A 46 State Analysis, 1991-2015, Substance Abuse, 2021 • “This study sought to answer the question ‘does permitting recreational cannabis dispensaries in a community effect high school students’ cannabis use, their perceptions of the accessibility of cannabis, and their perceptions of the harmfulness and wrongfulness of using cannabis?’ A cross-sectional survey of high school students was administered in 2013, before recreational cannabis dispensaries were permitted, and the survey was administered in 2015. … The 2013 and 2015 data on student cannabis use and perceptions toward cannabis was analyzed to compare high school student use and perceptions in communities in southcentral Colorado that had permitted recreational cannabis dispensaries with high school students in those communities that had not permitted dispensaries. … Based on the 2013 and 2015 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey data, permitting recreational cannabis dispensaries in a community does not appear to change student cannabis use or perceptions towards cannabis.”
High school student cannabis use and perceptions towards cannabis in southern Colorado — Comparing communities that permit recreational dispensaries and communities that do not, Journal of Cannabis Research, 2019
5 • “The distance from school to the nearest medical marijuana dispensary was not associated with adolescents’ use of marijuana in the past month or susceptibility to use marijuana in the future, nor was the weighted count of medical marijuana dispensaries within the 3-mile band of school. Neither the product price nor the product variety in the dispensary nearest to school was associated with marijuana use or susceptibility to use. The results were robust to different specifications of medical marijuana measures.” Medical marijuana availability , price, and product variety and adolescent’s marijuana use, Journal of Adolescent Health, 2018

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
Cannabis retailers are not selling to minors and their products are not being diverted to the underage market
• “This study addresses this need by conducting point-of-sale audits examining regulatory compliance (e.g., age verification, signage), advertising/promotional strategies, products, and pricing among 150 randomly-selected cannabis retailers in 5 US cities (30/city: Denver, Colorado; Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Las Vegas, Nevada; Los Angeles, California) in Summer 2022. … Age verification rates were high (>90%) … Mystery shoppers were required to show ID immediately upon entry at 89.9% of retailers; 2.9% asked later.” Cannabis retailer marketing strategies and regulatory compliance: A surveillance study of retailers in five US cities, Addictive Behaviors, 2023
• “To date this year, the MED [Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division] has conducted over 190 underage compliance checks utilizing underage operatives. Among underage compliance checks completed, four (4) businesses have made sales to the underage operative. This demonstrates a 98% compliance rate.”
Colorado Department of Revenue: Marijuana Enforcement Division, Industry-Wide Bulletin 22-04, August 9, 2022
• “California laws further require ID check before any purchase, and overall compliance with this rule was high at 678 RCDs [recreational cannabis dispensaries] (96.8%).” Assessment of recreational cannabis dispensaries’ compliance with underage access and marketing restrictions in California, JAMA Pediatrics, 2021
• “[P]seudo-underage patrons were sent to 50 randomly selected licensed recreational marijuana outlets in the state to see if they could enter the outlet without showing a valid identification with their age. At 100 percent of the recreational marijuana outlets visited, the pseudo-underage patrons were required to show age identification to enter. It appears that California recreational marijuana outlets avoid selling to underage customers.” An examination of the legal marijuana use age and its enforcement in California, a state where recreational marijuana is legal, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2021 • “On December 19, 2017 OLCC [the Oregon Liquor Control Commission] marijuana inspectors visited 20 marijuana retailers in central Oregon, and all of the 20 businesses visited in Bend and La Pine passed a check for prohibiting sales to a minor volunteer. ‘That our licensed retailers in central Oregon scored 100 percent on refusal to sell marijuana to a minor is a sign that this segment of our regulated industry understands the importance of compliance,’ said Steve Marks, Executive Director of the OLCC.”
6 “OLCC Launches Marijuana Retailer Minor Decoy Checks,” Oregon Liquor and Control Board press release, December 20, 2017
• Among state-licensed Colorado retailers, “Compliance with laws restricting marijuana sales to individuals age 21 years or older with a valid ID was extremely high and possibly higher than compliance with restrictions on alcohol sales. … “The retail market at present may not be a direct source of marijuana for underage individuals.” Pseudo-Underage Assessment of Compliance With Identification Regulations at Retail Marijuana Outlets in Colorado, Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 2016 Retail cannabis access is associated with reduced opioid consumption by the general public
• “We studied county level associations between cannabis storefront dispensaries and opioid related mortality rates in the US between 2014 and 2018. Our study found that increased medical and recreational storefront dispensary counts are associated with reduced opioid related mortality rates during the study period. These associations appear particularly strong for deaths related to synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. Given the alarming rise in the fentanyl based market in the US, and the increase in deaths involving fentanyl and its analogs in recent years, the question of how legal cannabis availability relates to opioid related deaths is particularly pressing. Overall, our study contributes to understanding the supply side of related drug markets and how it shapes opioid use and misuse.” Association between county level cannabis dispensary counts and opioid related mortality rates in the United States: panel data study, BMJ, 2021
• “In this research, we have examined the effect of MML laws and the presence of active legal dispensaries on CDC age-adjusted opioid overdose death rates over the years 1999-2015.

Our results suggest that states with active legal dispensaries see a drop in opioid death rates over time. … Overall, this research provides evidence that states with MMLs may see a decline in opioid overdose death rates if they enact legal dispensaries.” Medical marijuana laws and their effect on opioid-related morality, Economics Bulletin, 2019 • “[S]tates providing legal access to marijuana through dispensaries reduce deaths due to opioid overdoses. … We provide complementary evidence that dispensary provisions lower treatment admissions for addiction to pain medications. … In short, our findings that legally protected and operating medical marijuana dispensaries reduce opioid-related harms suggests that some individuals may be substituting towards marijuana, reducing the quantity of opioids they consume or forgoing initiation of opiates altogether. … At a minimum, however, our results suggest a potential overlooked positive effect of medical marijuana laws that support meaningful retail sales.”
Letters

RESEARCH LETTER
Recreational Marijuana Laws and Teen
Marijuana Use, 1993-2021
As of March 2024, 24 states have legalized recreational marijuana for individuals aged 21 years and older. As support for legalization increases, concerns remain that it will encourage youthmarijuana use.

Youthmarijuana use has been
associated with adverse health outcomes and poorer academic performance.1 Usingdata from theYouthRiskBehavior Surveys (YRBS) and
the interaction-weighted estimator, which allows for heterogeneous and dynamic treatment effects,2 this study provides updated estimates of the association between recreational marijuana laws (RMLs) and youth marijuana use.

Methods | For this repeated cross-sectional study, ethical review was not required because analyses of deidentified, secondary data are considered exempt by the San Diego State University institutional review board. This research adhered to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline.

Weighted national and state YRBS data for the period 1993 to 2021 were analyzed separately. Pooling national and state YRBS data is not recommended because underlying personlevel weights are different.3 While there is some overlap, the state-year coverage across the surveys is generally different.4 Legalization dates were collected from Anderson and
Rees.5Currentmarijuana use was defined as any use in the past 30 days, and frequentmarijuana use was defined as use at least 10 times in the past 30 days.

To our knowledge,more policy variationwas captured than in any prior study on RMLs and youth marijuana use. In the national YRBS, data pre- and post-RML adoptionwere available for 12 states; 9 states contributed data before and after dispensary sales began; data from 36 non-RML states were included. In the state YRBS, data pre- and post-RML adoption were available for 16 states;8 statescontributeddatabefore and afterdispensary salesbegan;data from 31non-RML stateswere included.Weused multivariate logistic regression analysis and separately called on the interaction-weighted estimator, which allows for heterogeneous anddynamic treatment effects.2 If the effectsofRMLswere heterogeneous and dynamic, then estimates from traditional methods could, in theory, be biased.6 All models were adjusted for individual- and state-level characteristics and state and surveywave indicators.Racewas self-reported in theYRBS and categorized as American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or White. Ethnicity was self-reported as Hispanic or nonHispanic.We used 2-sided hypothesis tests, and estimateswere considered significant atP < .05. Analyseswere conductedwith Stata version 17.1 (StataCorp) from July to December 2023.

Results | Among 207 781 national YRBS respondents (mean [SD] age, 16.04 [1.23] years; 50.90%male), 13.35% were Black or Afri can American, 17.09% were Hispanic, and 60.13% were nonSupplemental content Table. Estimates of the Association of Recreational Marijuana Legalization and Teen Marijuana Use, 1993-2021a Variable
Marijuana use (logistic estimates)
Marijuana use [interaction-weighted
estimates], ME (95% CI)b
Current Frequent
OR (95% CI) ME (95% CI) OR (95% CI) ME (95% CI) Current Frequent National YRBS (n = 207 781)c 0.97 (0.85 to

1.10)
−0.006 (−0.027 to

0.016)

0.98 (0.83 to

1.16)
−0.001 (−0.015 to

0.012)
−0.007 (−0.028 to

0.014)
−0.001 (−0.014 to

0.012)
State YRBS (n = 1 549 075)c 0.94 (0.88 to

1.00)
−0.010 (−0.020 to

0.0001)

0.90 (0.81 to

1.01)
−0.007 (−0.015 to

0.001)
−0.014 (−0.024 to
−0.005)e
−0.009 (−0.015 to
−0.003)e
National YRBS, replacing RML
with RML sales allowed
(n = 207 781)d

1.00 (0.87 to

1.16)

0.001 (−0.011 to

0.028)

1.11 (0.87 to

1.42)

0.009 (−0.011 to

0.028)
−0.003 (−0.023 to

0.018)

0.009 (−0.005 to

0.022)
State YRBS, replacing RML
with RML sales allowed
(n = 1 549 075)d

0.87 (0.78 to

0.96)e
−0.022 (−0.039 to
−0.006)e

0.98 (0.87 to

1.10)
−0.002 (−0.010 to

0.007)
−0.026 (−0.039 to
−0.014)e
−0.005 (−0.012 to

0.002)
Abbreviations: ME, marginal effects; OR, odds ratio; RML, recreational marijuana laws; YRBS, Youth Risk Behavior Survey.
a Weighted estimates are based on biennial data from the YRBS (1993-2021).

For the logistic regression models, estimated ORs and MEs of current marijuana use (ie, any use in the past 30 days) and frequent marijuana use (ie, use 10 times in the past 30 days) are reported. For the interaction-weighted models, estimated MEs of current marijuana use and frequent marijuana use are reported. Estimates were adjusted for individual-level characteristics (age, sex, grade, and race), whether marijuana use and possession were decriminalized in the respondent’s state, whether medical marijuana was legalized in the respondent’s state, the presence of a state-level 0.08 blood alcohol concentration law, the state beer tax, state income per capita, state unemployment rate, state indicators, and survey-wave (ie, year) indicators.

Standard errors, which were used to construct the 95% CIs, were corrected for clustering at the state level.
bControl states were limited to those that never adopted an RML (but could have adopted a medical marijuana law), as required by the interactionweighted estimator. c RML is equal to 1 if a state recreational marijuana law was in effect and is equal to 0 otherwise.
dRML sales allowed is equal to 1 if state recreational marijuana sales had begun and is equal to 0 otherwise.
e Statistically significant (P < .05).
jamapsychiatry.com (Reprinted) JAMA Psychiatry Published online April 24, 2024 E1 © 2024 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded from jamanetwork.com by Ben Rice on 05/08/2024 Hispanic White. Among 1 549 075 state YRBS respondents
(mean [SD] age, 16.01 [1.23] years; 50.20% male), 16.53% were Black or African American, 17.78% were Hispanic, and 58.09% were non-Hispanic White.

Based on the national YRBS, RML adoption was not associated with current marijuana use (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI,

0.85-1.10) or frequent marijuana use (odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.83-1.16) (Table). Estimates based on the state YRBS and estimates of the association between the first dispensary opening and marijuana use were qualitatively similar (Table). Interaction-weighted estimates were similar to their logistic regression counterparts (Table).

Based on the national YRBS and using lead and lag indicators in place of the RML indicators, there was no association between RMLs and marijuana use during the prelegalization period (Figure), suggesting the parallel-trends assumption held. After legalization, there was no evidence of an increase in marijuana use.

Discussion | In this repeated cross-sectional study, there was no evidence that RMLs were associated with encouraging youth marijuana use, based on both the logistic regression and interaction-weightedmodels.One limitationof thisstudy is thatyouth who dropped out of high school are absent from the YRBS, and these individuals may be vulnerable to increased marijuana access. Going forward, researchers will want to update our estimates as additional posttreatment data become available and more states legalize marijuana for recreational purposes.

D. Mark Anderson, PhD
Hao T. Fe, PhD
Yang Liang, PhD
Joseph J. Sabia, PhD
Author Affiliations: Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University, Bozeman (Anderson); Department of Economics, San Diego State University, San Diego, California (Fe); Center for Health Economics and Policy Studies, San Diego State University, San Diego, California (Liang, Sabia).

Accepted for Publication: February 22, 2024.

Published Online: April 24, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.0698 Corresponding Author: D. Mark Anderson, PhD, Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University, PO Box 172920, Bozeman, MT 59717-2920 ([email protected]).

Author Contributions: Dr Sabia had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Anderson, Liang, Sabia.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Anderson, Sabia.

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Liang.

Obtained funding: Sabia.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Liang, Sabia.

Supervision: Anderson, Sabia.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Sabia reported receiving grants from University of Missouri and grants from Troesh Family Foundation outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: Dr Sabia acknowledges partial support from the Center for Health Economics & Policy Studies at San Diego State University, including grant funding received from the Charles Koch Foundation.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Disclaimer: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors.

Data Sharing Statement: See the Supplement.

1. Ammerman S, Ryan S, Adelman WP, et al; Committee on Substance Abuse, Committee on Adolescence; Committee on Substance Abuse Committee on Adolescence. The impact of marijuana policies on youth: clinical, research, and legal update. Pediatrics. 2015;135(3):584-587. doi:10.1542/peds.2014-4147

2. Sun L, Abraham S. Estimating dynamic treatment effects in event studies with heterogeneous treatment effects.J Econom. 2021;225(2):175-199. doi:10. 1016/j.jeconom.2020.09.006

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Combining YRBS data across years and sites. Accessed November 27, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/ healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/yrbs_combining_data.pdf

4. Anderson DM, Hansen B, Rees DI. Medical marijuana laws and teen marijuana use. Am Law Econ Rev. 2015;17(2):495-528. doi:10.1093/aler/ahv002

5. Anderson DM, Rees DI. The public health effects of legalizing marijuana.

J Econ Lit. 2023;61(1):86-143. doi:10.1257/jel.20211635

6. Baker AC, Larcker DF, Wang CCY. How much should we trust staggered difference-in-differences estimates? J Financ Econ. 2022;144(2):370-395. doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2022.01.004
Figure. Event Study Analysis

0.20 0.15
–0.15

0.10 –0.10

0.05 –0.05
0 –0.20
Marginal effect of RML on
marijuana use (95% CI)
Survey waves enacted since RML adoption, No.

Pre- and post-RML trends in current marijuana use
(logistic estimates)
A
≤3 –2 –1 0 1 2 ≥3

0.20 0.15
–0.15

0.10 –0.10

0.05 –0.05
0 –0.20
Marginal effect of RML on
marijuana use (95% CI)
Survey waves enacted since RML adoption, No.

Pre- and post-RML trends in current marijuana use
(interaction-weighted estimates)
B
≤3 –2 –1 0 1 2 ≥3
RML indicates recreational marijuana law.

Downloaded from jamanetwork.com by Ben Rice on 05/08/2024 Study: Frequent Cannabis Use Not
Linked to Motivation Loss
• BY NORML
• POSTED ON APRIL 30, 2024
Those who regularly consume cannabis do not exhibit so-called ‘amotivational syndrome,” even when they are acutely under the influence, according to data published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

Researchers affiliated with the University of Toronto assessed a cohort of 260 frequent cannabis consumers five times per day over a seven-day period. Investigators assessed subjects’ motivation and willingness to push themselves during times when they were under the influence and when they were not.

They reported: “In contrast to the stereotype of the stoned slacker who is apathetic and unmotivated, we found little evidence for an association between being high and a lack of motivation among cannabis users. … When frequent cannabis users get high, in other words, they are no more apathetic, nor less extrinsically or intrinsically motivated to pursue their goals. … We also failed to find any next-day emotional effects.” Commenting on the study’s findings, its lead author stated: “There is a stereotype that chronic cannabis users are somehow lazy or unproductive. We found that’s not the case. … Our data suggests that you can be hard-working, motivated and a chronic cannabis user at the same time.”
Other recent studies assessing cannabis use and motivation have reached similar conclusions. For instance, a 2022 study determined that college-age students who used cannabis were more likely to engage in effort-related decision making tasks than were nonusers. Another study concluded that the use of cannabis is not independently predictive of significant changes in adolescents’ motivation, apathy, or engagement.

NORML’s Deputy Director Paul Armentano said: “These findings, and others, refute hypothesized associations between cannabis use and low motivation. It is unfortunate that many of these longstanding stereotypes have historically guided public health messaging about cannabis and have also been used to stigmatize and discriminate against those who consume it responsibly.”
The full text of the study, Chronic cannabis use in everyday life: Emotional, motivational, and selfregulatory effects of frequently getting high,” appears online.

JAMA Psychiatry: “No Evidence” That
Marijuana Legalization Laws Encourage
Youth Use • BY NORML
• POSTED ON APRIL 26, 2024
Neither the passage of adult-use marijuana legalization laws nor the advent of retail cannabis sales is associated with increased marijuana use by adolescents, according to data published this week in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) Psychiatry.

Researchers from Montana State University and San Diego State University assessed the relationship between state-level marijuana legalization laws and youth marijuana use over 28 years (1993-2021).

Consistent with prior analyses, researchers determined, “There was no evidence that RML [recreational marijuana laws] were associated with encouraging youth marijuana use.” Commenting on the data, NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said, “These findings should reassure lawmakers and the public that cannabis access for adults can be legally regulated in a manner that is safe, effective, and that does not negatively impact young people’s consumption habits.”
He added: “Data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds that the percentage of high schoolers who report using marijuana has fallen 30 percent over the past decade. Further, compliance check data from California, Colorado, Nevada, and other legal marijuana states show that licensed marijuana retailers do not sell products to underage patrons.”
Last week, a study published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics reported that state-licensed cannabis sales are associated with modest decreases in teens use of alcohol and ecigarettes.

Full text of the study, “Recreational marijuana laws and teen marijuana use, 1993- 2021,” appears in JAMA Psychiatry. Additional information is available from the NORML Fact Sheet, ‘Marijuana Regulation and Teen Use Rates.’
Article
Social Psychological and
Personality Science
1–12
The Author(s) 2024
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/19485506241245744
journals.sagepub.com/home/spp
Chronic Cannabis Use in Everyday Life:

Emotional, Motivational, and
Self-Regulatory Effects of Frequently
Getting High
Michael Inzlicht1 , Taylor Bridget Sparrow-Mungal1,2,
and Gregory John Depow1
Abstract
Approximately 200 million people consume cannabis annually, with a significant proportion of them using it chronically. Using experience sampling, we describe the effects of chronically getting high on emotions, motivation, effort, and self-regulation in everyday life. We queried chronic users (N = 260) 5 times per day over 7 days (3,701 observations) to assess immediate effects of getting high and longer term, between-person effects. Getting high was associated with more positive emotions and fewer negative emotions. Contrary to stereotypes, we observed minimal effects on motivation or objective effort willingness.

However, getting high was associated with lower scores on facets of conscientiousness. Surprisingly, there was no evidence of a weed hangover. Relative to less frequent users, very frequent users exhibited more negative emotions dispositionally, but they were more motivated. They also reported less self-control and willpower. As attitudes about cannabis are changing, our findings provide a rich description of its chronic use.

Keywords
cannabis, emotions, motivation, effort, self-regulation, conscientiousness Introduction
People like to get high. With nearly 200 million people worldwide having used cannabis in the past year, cannabis is the fourth most used recreational drug after caffeine, alcohol and tobacco (United Nations, 2020). Despite its wide use and increasing legal and societal acceptance, surprisingly little is known about its effects among habitual users in everyday life. Instead, research on cannabis tends to treat it as a drug of abuse, focused mostly on the health risks of overuse and dependence. Here, we focus on what is missing, describing the everyday experience of getting high among habitual users, examining reasons they get high, its possible salutary emotional effects, and its surprising lack of costs to motivation and industriousness.

The Chronic
People have been getting high for millennia: First cultivated in the Neolithic period 12,000 years ago, written records of humans using cannabis for its mind-altering
properties date back to 2,800 BC in Dynastic China (Abel, 1980). Today, jurisdictions in Canada, Uruguay, Thailand, and 24 U.S. States have legalized cannabis for recreational use and retail sale; and cannabis has been decriminalized even more widely. According to the U.S. data, 18% of
Americans used cannabis at least once in 2019 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021). In Canada, where cannabis is fully legal, 25% of Canadians used cannabis at least once in 2021, with 35% of those ingesting 3 or more times per week (Statistics Canada, 2021). Habitual use of cannabis is thus common, accounting for about 9% of
Canadian adults.

Despite popular stereotypes of the lazy stoner depicting chronic cannabis users as low-achieving ne’er-do-wells, chronic users come from all walks of life. While there are demographic differences between chronic users and
nonusers—for example, chronic use is higher among men,
younger people, Black, Latino, and Indigenous populations, and the unmarried (Jeffers et al., 2021)—most chronic users are employed, conscientious, and have stable 1 University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2 Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding Author:

Michael Inzlicht, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, 1265 Military Trail, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M1C 1A4.

Email: [email protected]
incomes (Hart, 2022; Jeffers et al., 2021). Recreational cannabis use in places where it is legal is now normalized and widely accepted: users are perceived as diverse and indistinguishable from nonusers; and cannabis is recognized to have benefits and harms (Kilwein et al., 2022).

But even with this broad destigmatization, much
research treats cannabis as a medical problem involving substantial risk. These hypothesized risks include structural and functional changes to the brain’s reward network
(Volkow et al., 2017), personality change (Winters et al., 2022), and so-called amotivational syndrome (PachecoColo´n et al., 2018). This work, however, typically yields mixed results especially among adult users. For example, studies suggest that regular cannabis users are both less (Winters et al., 2022) and more agreeable (Vigil et al., 2022); while other studies suggest that chronic users have both low (Looby & Earleywine, 2007) and normal levels of motivation (Skumlien et al., 2023). We cannot help but
wonder if one of the reasons for these mixed results is the implied goal of this research: to reduce use. Here, we start with the premise that cannabis is widely used for recreational purposes and that it might yield both positive and negative effects.

Emotions, Motivation, and Self-Regulation
To understand what drives chronic users to get high, we start by exploring phenomenology, looking at how cannabis intoxication makes people feel. Given the high prevalence of cannabis use, including chronic use, we should expect that getting high feels good for many people.

However, aside from passing mentions of euphoria, scholarly descriptions of cannabis intoxication are dominated by negative symptoms including anxiety, paranoia, social withdrawal, and dysphoria (American Psychiatric
Association, 2013). Chronic users get high for a reason, and we suspect it’s because it is positively reinforcing, making many, if not all, people feel good (Sznitman
et al., 2022). Moving beyond good or bad moods, here
we wonder how cannabis changes people’s discrete emotions (Fredrickson, 2009)—for example, awe, gratitude, and love. By appreciating the emotional profile of frequent cannabis intoxication, we might better understand what drives use and possibly identity novel applications for cannabis, say in therapeutic contexts (Earleywine
et al., 2022).

We next explore how cannabis intoxication affects motivation. Despite long-standing stereotypes depicting chronic users as lazy and unmotivated, the literature presents a messy picture. While numerous studies suggest that chronic use is associated with apathy and low motivation (PachecoColo´n et al., 2018), many of these associations disappear once analyses control for influential third variables like personality, depression, and alcohol use (Petrucci et al., 2020).

Some studies find no relationship between chronic cannabis use on one hand and apathy and objective effort willingness on the other hand (Skumlien et al., 2023). Remarkably,
other studies suggest that chronic users are more—not
less—motivated, when motivation is assessed via objective behavioral tasks and not simply subjective self-report (Vele et al., 2022). Motivation is a multidimensional construct with important sources of variability accounted by the
source and quality of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Thus, while cannabis intoxication might not undermine
motivation globally, it might affect specific sources of motivation.

We can’t help but wonder if some of this lack of clarity is due to the conflation of motivation with self-regulation—perhaps getting high does not impact drive or a willingness to work but instead undermines people’s ability to regulate themselves. Self-regulation is the dynamic process of determining what goals to pursue and then steering
behavior toward those goals (Inzlicht et al., 2021), and at the trait level is associated with conscientiousness and (lack of) impulsivity (Roberts et al., 2014). At the state level, there is good reason to believe that cannabis intoxication can undermine the regulation of goal pursuit. While not affecting all executive functions uniformly, lab studies consistently indicate that being high impairs planning and decision-making and increases risk-taking and impulsivity (Crean et al., 2011). Whether, and to what extent, cannabis intoxication among chronic users undermines selfregulation in the real world is unknown.

Current Study
Here, we use experience sampling to understand the effects of getting high among chronic users going about their
everyday lives. Here, we repeatedly probe whether chronic cannabis users are high (or not) and then examine whether within-person changes in cannabis intoxication are related to discrete emotions and specific states of motivation and self-regulation (see Figure 1). We also examine how
between-person differences in how frequently chronic users get high relate to dispositional differences. While our approach relies on self-report, retrospective biases are limited given that participants are asked about what they are experiencing in that very moment. Furthermore, we move
beyond self-report by examining participants’ objective willingness to exert mental effort. Finally, because this approach examines changes within a person—asking, for
example, how willing a person is to exert effort when they are high compared with when they are not high—it controls for nuisance third variable problems and thus allows for better approximations of causal claims (Rohrer &
Murayama, 2023). Despite these strengths, a major limitation is that our sample was selected for being both chronic cannabis users and users willing to participate in a timeconsuming longitudinal study. Our results, therefore, might not generalize to broader populations.
2 Social Psychological and Personality Science 00(0)
Methods
Participants and Procedure
Participants were recruited from Reddit, an online discussion board with many sub-communities or ‘‘subreddits’’ focused on specific interests. Participants were considered eligible if they were over 21, resided in the United States or Canada, and used cannabis at least 3 times a week for
recreational but not medical purposes. Participants completed the 30-minute baseline survey and an experience sampling period where they were sent brief surveys 5 times a day, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 11 p.m., for 1
week (see Figure 1).1
In total, our final sample contains 260 participants who completed both the baseline questionnaire and at least one experience sampling survey, resulting in a sample of n = 3,701 surveys (see Figure 2 for a histogram of experience sampling response rates) taken from the daily lives of
chronic cannabis users. A sensitivity analysis suggests that with 260 participants and an average of about 15 observations per person, we have 80% power to detect withinperson effects as small as r = .08 and between-person effects as small as r = .17. This study was not preregistered. All materials and data are available here: https://osf. io/xtzfs/?view_only=93a237aca68543a0a3f0cd53a2138986.

Baseline Survey. As part of the baseline, we administered a frequency of cannabis use measure (Cuttler & Spradlin,
2017), as well as measures of individual differences (see Table S1a in Supplemental Materials for a complete list of baseline measures). Included in this was the 50-item
International Personality Item Pool five-factor model as a Big 5 measure of personality (Ehrhart et al., 2008).

Participants in our sample were fairly similar to data from N = 10,019 online respondents (ipip.ori.org means shown in brackets) in terms of Conscientiousness, M = 3.4, SD = 0.61 (3.38), Extraversion, M = 3, SD = 0.67 (3.05),
and Neuroticism, M = 3.2, SD = 0.7 (2.98)—but were
slightly lower with regard to Openness, M = 3.7, SD = 0. 56 (4.05), and Agreeableness, M = 3.5, SD = 0.59 (3.84).

We also administered a modified version of the cognitive effort discounting paradigm (Westbrook et al., 2013), both at baseline and during each experience sampling survey (see Figure 3). In our version of the task, participants made a series of 7 choices about which of two tasks to perform: an easy number-sorting task for little compensation or a harder number-sorting task for more compensation
(Cuevas Rivera et al., 2020). We calculated effort discounting by taking the value of the final decision and subtracting it from 200; this corresponds to the number of tickets participants are willing to forego to do the easier task. At baseline, our participants were willing to forego an average of

64.21 lottery tickets (SD = 85.05) to avoid doing the more effortful version of the number-ordering task.

Experience Sampling. To get a representative sample of people’s experience, the experience sampling surveys were sent 5 times a day for 7 days between 10 a.m. and 11 p.m. at random times with an interval of at least 2 hours between surveys (see Table S1b in Supplemental Materials for a
complete list of measures used in experience sampling).

The surveys were sent via text message with SurveySignal (Hofmann & Patel, 2015) and distributed via Qualtrics.

Participants had up to 30 minutes to answer the survey
before the link expired. In these surveys, participants were asked if they currently felt high (yes/no). Participants who indicated that they were not currently high were provided with filler questions about cannabis craving so that the Figure 1. Flowchart of Procedure
Note. Many participants learned about the study in the eligibility survey, but most were not interested or ineligible. For the baseline, 285 completed a survey, but only 260 participants completed at least one experience-sampling survey. In the experience-sampling surveys, we matched 3,701 individual surveys to their respective baseline surveys. We trimmed surveys fewer than 60 minutes apart. Thus, our final sample included 3,701 observations from the daily lives of 260 recreational cannabis users.

Inzlicht et al. 3
survey would have the same length had they reported being high. If participants reported feeling high, we asked them how they ingested (smoking, vaping, edible, or other) and to select all the reasons they got high by checking one or more reasons why they used cannabis (e.g., because I liked the feeling, to forget my worries), which was a measure we adapted from the Marijuana Motives Measure (Benschop
et al., 2015). Next, we measured our main dependent
variables.

Emotions. To assess current emotional experiences, we
administered the modified Differential Emotions Scale
(Fredrickson, 2009). This scale assesses the extent to which participants felt 20 specific emotions (10 positive and 10 negative) at the current moment on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). The 10 positive emotions included awe, contentedness, and gratitude; the 10 negative emotions included anger, disgust, and embarrassment.

Motivation. We next assessed participants’ current levels of motivation using a self-determination theory lens to classify different types of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

According to self-determination theory, the quality of
motivation—and not just quantity—varies and ranges from amotivation (lack of caring), external motivation (being motivated by external demand or reward), introjected motivation (internalized motivation, yet driven by guilt and obligation), and identified motivation (autonomous and
personally important). Participants read a single item for each motivation type, taken from a global motivation scale (Guay et al., 2003), and then rated their agreement ‘‘right now’’ with each statement on a 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree) Likert-type scale. In each experience sampling survey participants also completed the same effort discounting task as in the baseline survey (Westbrook
et al., 2013).

Conscientiousness. To assess broad self-regulatory capacity, each experience sampling survey included state measures of willpower and conscientiousness. To assess the current level of willpower, we administered a brief five-item version of the State Self-control Capacity Scale (Lindner et al., 2019). This scale assesses participants’ current levels of energy and focus, with statements like ‘‘Right now, I feel sharp and focused.’’ Participants rated how much they
agree with each statement on a scale from 1 (not true) to 7 Figure 2. Histogram of Experience Sampling Surveys Completed by Each Participant Note. To be included in our analysis, participants needed to complete the baseline survey and at least one experience sampling survey. As a result of our decision to include as much data as possible, experience sampling response rates vary widely; while participants completed on average 15.23 surveys each, there was substantial heterogeneity in response rates, SD = 9.86, with the modal participant completing only two surveys.
4 Social Psychological and Personality Science 00(0)
(very true). We also assessed current levels of the
six different facets of conscientiousness taken from
the Chernyshenko Conscientiousness Scale (Green et al., 2016): self-control (thoughtful and deliberate), orderliness (organized), industriousness (hard working), traditionalism (rule-following), responsibility (keeping promises), and Figure 3. Effort Discounting Procedure
Note. We manipulated effort via number-ordering, where participants chose between an easier or harder number-ordering task. At the start of each trial, participants chose between ordering one-digit numbers for little compensation or four-digit numbers for more compensation.

Compensation consisted of a variable number of lottery tickets that would be entered into a draw to win an actual iPad (~US$429 value).

On the initial choice, participants were offered 100 lottery tickets for the easy option or 200 tickets for the hard option. After making their choice, participants then completed a single trial corresponding to their choice. Participants made a total of seven choices, with the value of the high effort option always being 200 tickets, but with the value of the low effort option varying via a staircasing procedure to determine the point of indifference for each participant. We calculated effort discounting by taking that final subjective value amount and subtracting it from 200; this corresponds to the number of tickets participants are willing to forego to do the easier task.

Inzlicht et al. 5
virtue (honesty). These facet scales were shortened (2–3 items per facet) and modified to reflect current states.

Participants rate how much they agreed ‘‘right now’’ with various statements on a 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5
(Strongly Agree) Likert-type scale.

Analysis
Given the nested nature of our data (surveys nested within days, nested within people) we used a multilevel approach in our analysis, including a random intercept for participant and day in each model. Data were analyzed in R using the lmer and glmer functions from the lme4 (Bates et al., 2015) and lmerTest packages (Kuznetsova et al., 2017). For continuous measures, we used linear mixed effects models fit by restricted maximum likelihood, calculating t-tests via Satterthwaite’s method. Within-subject B estimates indicate the change in Y associated with a 1-unit change in X (i.e., being high vs. not being high); whereas between-subject B estimates show the change in Y associated with people 1 standard deviation above the mean of X (i.e., being high on 96% of experience samples) versus those 1 standard deviation below the mean of X (i.e., being high on 32% of experience samples).

In our models, we assessed both between and withinsubject sources of variance by including both participantcentered (for continuous measures) and grand-mean centered versions of our fixed-effect predictors in the model. We also included time minus 1 version of each
fixed-effect predictor, as well as the time minus 1 version of the variable being predicted, to control for prior levels of both the dependent and independent variables in the
model, and to test for lagged effects of cannabis use:

Y =XGrandMeanCentered + XParticipantMeanCentered
+ XParticipantCenteredTminus1 + YTminus1
+ ðÞ 1jParticipant +(1jParticipant: Day):

Using this modeling approach, we can partial out betweenand within-subject sources of variance. We care mostly about within-subject variance, as this examines state
changes within a person, keeping all between-person variables constant (e.g., what is the emotional profile of being high vs not being high). But we also examine betweenperson variance, which addresses differences between people (e.g., what is the emotional profile of people who use cannabis daily versus weekly). Note, however, that our
study cannot compare cannabis users to nonusers, but
instead compares very frequent users to less frequent, but still regular users. Critically, we control for prior levels of the predicted variable, thereby allowing us to distill
changes in that variable since the last survey (e.g., being high leads to an increase in awe relative to previous levels of awe). Similarly, we control for prior levels of the predictor variable to control for any possible carryover effects from the last survey (e.g., being high now relates to an increase in awe controlling for previous states of cannabis intoxication).

We predicted each variable in a separate model, correcting p-values for each fixed-effect term grouped by a specific research question. Specifically, the p-values for differential emotions were corrected together, as were motivation and effort measures, and conscientiousness and willpower measures. We followed the Benjamini and Hochberg (1995) procedure to control the false discovery rate. To calculate effect sizes, we used a validated effect-size r for fixed effects in multilevel models derived from R2 (Edwards et al., 2008). This approach has previously been used in the literature for effect sizes in a multilevel modeling context (Depow et al., 2022).

We did not collect a sample of representative cannabis
users. Instead, ours was a convenience sample of frequent cannabis users who self-selected into a weeklong experience sampling study. Even though our baseline measurements suggest that our participants were not especially conscientious, they might be particularly conscientious for chronic cannabis users, who tend to be low in conscientiousness (Winters et al., 2022). This means that our results might not generalize to the broader population of cannabis users, where associations could differ (e.g., Berkson’s Paradox; Rohrer, 2018).

Results
Sample Demographics
In line with patterns of use (Jeffers et al., 2021), our sample was primarily male (76% male); primarily young (M =

27.98, SD = 4.70); majority White (56%) but with a large Black subgroup (38%), and with smaller number of East
Asian (1%), South Asian (1%), Bi-racial (3%), and other (\1%) participants. Participants in our sample were from the United States (65%) and Canada (35%). As part of the baseline, we administered a frequency of use measure (Cuttler & Spradlin, 2017), which revealed that on average our participants used cannabis a little more than 5–6 times a week.

Frequency and Reasons for Cannabis Use
Overall, participants reported feeling high in 64% of the surveys (see Figure 4A). Participants ingested cannabis through several modes, with smoking (54%), vaping (22%), and eating (21%) particularly common. When participants reported feeling high, we next asked them why. Participants used cannabis for many different reasons, and often for a combination of reasons (see Figure 4B). Overall, participants claimed liking the feeling as the main reason driving use, but the ability to be creative and to forget one’s worries were also endorsed frequently. Surprising to us, many people also reported using cannabis to help them focus and concentrate.

Cannabis Use and Emotions
Feeling High in the Moment. When regular cannabis users are high,2 they report feeling less fearful and less stressed 6 Social Psychological and Personality Science 00(0)
compared with when they are not high (see Figure 5A).

More dramatic is how being high increases positive emotions across the board (see Figure 5B). Relative to when habitual cannabis users are not high, being high increases all positive emotion, notably awe, silliness, happiness, and inspiration (see Table S2 in Supplemental Materials for full statistics). While effect sizes were modest in size, they ranged from r = .21 for awe to r = .11 for love. Note that all effects above and throughout are reported as statistically significant after correction for multiple comparisons.

People Who Get High Very Frequently. Our data allow us to also describe the emotional profile of very frequent users relative to less frequent (but sill frequent) ones. Here, the emotional picture looks much less positive. Compared with those who get high less frequently, people who get high very frequently report greater negative emotions across the board, for example, feeling more disgust, scorn, fear, and embarrassment (see Table S3 in Supplemental Materials).

All these were medium-to-large effect sizes ranging from r = .28 to r =.39. Note that everyone in our sample was a chronic user, meaning that our between-person comparisons are comparing people who are high often (i.e., high on 32% of experience samples, high 4–6 times per week) to people who are high exceptionally often (i.e., high on 96% of experience samples, high multiple times per day).

Cannabis Use, Motivation, and Effort
Feeling High in the Moment. In contrast to the stereotype of the stoned slacker who is apathetic and unmotivated, we found little evidence for an association between being high and a lack of motivation among cannabis users (see
Figure 6A). Results indicate that being high was not associated with any facet of motivation, save for introjected motivation, which had a very small (r = .05) negative effect, b = 20.17, SE = 0.06, t(2,926) = 22.79, adj. p = .027 (see Table S4 in Supplemental Materials for full statistics).

When frequent cannabis users get high, in other words, they are no more apathetic, nor less extrinsically or intrinsically motivated to pursue their goals. They are, however, slightly less motivated to do things when they are high because they would be upset with themselves if they did not do them.

Beyond self-reported motivation, we found little evidence that being high was related to people’s willingness to exert actual mental effort. Specifically, chronic cannabis users discount mental effort—voluntarily foregoing lottery tickets to do the easier instead of harder number-sorting task—at about the same rate when they are high,
M = 76.90 (SE = 5.09), compared with when they are not
high, M = 57.10 (SE = 6.32) (see Figure 6C). Whereas being high was associated with less motivation to do things out of guilt for chronic users, it had no impact on their broader motivation, including feelings of amotivation, and it had no impact on their actual willingness to exert mental effort.

People Who Get High Very Frequently. Again, countering the stereotype of the lazy stoner, people who get high multiple times per day are not less motivated than those who get high multiple times per week (see Figure 6B). In fact, in some instances, they are more motivated. Compared with
those who get high less frequently, people who get high Figure 4. Frequency of Cannabis Use, Mode of Use, and Reasons for Use. (A) Participants Were High 64% of the Time; and They Got High by Smoking Cannabis Flower (54%), Vaping Dried Flower or Cannabis Concentrates (22%), or Eating Cannabis Edibles (21%). (B) In Total, Participants Gave 5,847 Reasons for Ingesting Cannabis, Which Comes Out to 2.48 Reasons Per Time They Got High. The Most Frequent Reasons for Use Were Because Participants Liked the Feeling (22%), Because It Helped Them Feel Creative and Perceive Things Differently (17%), to Forget About Worries (17%), and to Help Concentrate (16%)
Inzlicht et al. 7
Figure 5. Within-Person and Between-Person Effects of Feeling High on Discrete Emotions (A) Within-Person Effects (B and Standard Errors) Indicate That Cannabis Intoxication Is Associated With an Increase in All Positive Emotions and a Slight Decrease in Stress and Fear, With Modest Effect Sizes Ranging From r =.21 to r =.09. (B) Between-Person Effects (B and Standard Errors), in Contrast, Indicate That People Who GET High Very Frequently (96% of the Time) Have Higher Trait Levels of All Negative Emotions Compared With Those Who Get High Relatively Less Frequently (32% of the Time) Figure 6. Within-Person and Between-Person Effects of Feeling High on Motivation (A) Within-Person Effects (B and Standard Errors) Indicate That Getting High Undermines Introjected Motivation but Leaves Every Other Facet of Motivation Intact. (B) Between-Person Effects (B and Standard Errors) Indicate That People Who Get High Frequently (High 96% of Time) Have Higher Levels of Both External and Introjected Motivation Relative to Those Who Get High Relatively Less Frequently (High 32% of Time). (C) Predicted Effort Discounting ( 6 SE) Indicates no Difference in the Number of Lottery Tickets a Person Is Willing to Forego to Do the Easier Versus Harder Task When They Are High or Not 8 Social Psychological and Personality Science 00(0)
exceptionally often have higher levels of external and introjected motivation, though these effects are small, r between .13 and .15, see Table S4 in Supplemental Materials. Very frequent users, that is, are more motivated than less frequent users to complete things to obtain rewards and social approval and to avoid feeling guilty. Frequently getting high was not linked with amotivation or integrated motivation, nor was it predictive of willingness to exert actual mental effort.

Cannabis Use and Conscientiousness
Feeling High in the Moment. In contrast to our motivation findings, we found robust evidence that cannabis intoxication was negatively related to certain aspects of conscientiousness (see Figure 7A). While getting high did not impact chronic users’ momentary reports of willpower,
responsibility, and industriousness, it did hurt numerous other aspects of momentary conscientiousness. When
chronic users get high, they report being more impulsive (lower self-control), less organized and neat (orderliness), more willing to lie to get their way (lower virtue), and less willing to follow societal rules (traditionalism). All effect sizes are small, ranging from r = .10 to r = .16 (see Table S5 in Supplemental Materials for full statistics). Thus, chronic users are somewhat less conscientious when they get high, even as they remain focused, responsible, and industrious.

People Who Get High Very Frequently. The between-person effects on self-regulation more-or-less mirror the withinperson effects. People who get high multiple times per day report being lower in self-control, virtue, orderliness, and willpower than those who get high relatively less frequently.

They are no different from less frequent users in terms of responsibility, industriousness, and traditionalism, however (see Figure 7B). All effects are small, rs between .13 and .20, except for the effect on self-control that is large in size, r = .34 (see Table S5 in Supplemental Materials).

What Weed Hangover?
Anecdotally, some users report feeling different the day after or hours after being high, akin to a hangover after drinking. To address this, we examined if feeling high during the last (lagged) survey was related to current states, controlling for currently feeling high, both within one day and across to the next day.3 While currently feeling high was associated with a host of emotional changes, feeling high at the last survey measured hours earlier was surprisingly not associated with current levels of emotion. We also failed to find any next-day emotional effects (all adj. ps . .05), meaning that being high on the last completed survey of the day was unrelated to emotions on the first completed survey of the very next day. Similarly, there were no significant effects of feeling high at the last survey on current levels of motivation or effort willingness both within and across days (all adj. ps . .05). Finally, there were no significant lagged effects of feeling high at the last survey on current assessments of conscientiousness both within and across days (all adj. ps . .05). Thus, at least among chronic users, the effects of cannabis intoxication in the real world are short lived, with little indication of any sort of cannabis hangover a few hours later or the next day.

General Discussion
Cannabis is the fourth most widely used recreational drug in the world after caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco, yet our understanding of its recreational use and effects are
Figure 7. Within-Person and Between-Person Effects of Feeling High on Conscientiousness (A) Within-Person Effects (B and Standard Errors) Indicate That Getting High Undermines Self-Control, Orderliness, Virtue, and Traditionalism Aspects of Conscientiousness. (B) Between-Person Effects (B and Standard Errors) Indicate That People Who Get High Frequently (High 96% of Time) Have Lower Levels of Self-Control, Orderliness, and Virtue Aspects of Conscientiousness, and Lower Willpower Relative to Those Who Get High Less Relatively Frequently (High 32% of Time) Inzlicht et al. 9
surprisingly myopic. Much of this myopia comes from its historical criminalization, preventing a neutral and cleareyed evaluation of cannabis’s harms and benefits alike.

This led to a distorted view of cannabis and cannabis users, to the point where contemporary ethicists seriously claim that recreational cannabis use is unethical, morally illicit, and never warranted (Sullivan & Austriaco, 2016). Such
moralization helps clarify why cannabis users are stereotyped as lazy, uneducated, and possibly criminal (Reid, 2020).

Societal views and laws are changing, however. As an
increasing number of jurisdictions around the world have legalized cannabis, people are using cannabis more regularly, with some using it very frequently, chronically even (Statistics Canada, 2021). Our goal here was to understand this not insubstantial population more fully by nonjudgmentally
describing chronic cannabis use and chronic cannabis users in everyday life. We took a micro-longitudinal experience sampling approach to capture the real-life experience of chronic cannabis users, specifically interrogating how getting high influences how they feel, self-regulate, and motivate themselves. Our data reveal both expected and surprising findings.

Not surprisingly, compared with not feeling high, feeling high for chronic users was associated with a host of
increased positive emotions such as awe, inspiration, and gratitude, as well as reduced stress and fear at the withinperson level. Interestingly, getting high was not associated with increased suspicion/paranoia among chronic users,
contrary to popular depictions and even medical symptom lists (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). We note, however, that paranoia might be more common among
younger and more inexperienced users (Mackie et al.,
2021), something that we are unable to explore with our nonrepresentative sample of chronic cannabis users.

These emotional results shed some light on the main reason chronic users report using cannabis—because they like the feeling. In contrast, people who get high very frequently experience more negative emotions overall than people who still get high frequently, but relatively less frequently.

More surprising is what we discovered about motivation. We tested a broad range of motivation variables, ranging from self-reported apathy and intrinsic motivation to the actual exertion of mental effort, and overall found few negative effects of cannabis among chronic users.

Other than a small reduction in people doing things to
avoid feeling upset with themselves (introjected motivation), when chronic users got high, they were no more amotivated, no less motivated for extrinsic or intrinsic reasons, and no less willing to objectively push themselves.

Likewise, people who get high very frequently (e.g., daily) are not less motivated dispositionally than those who also get high frequently, but relatively less frequently (e.g., weekly); if anything, they are more motivated (at least for external and introjected reasons). We caution, however, that selection effects could introduce a collider bias
(Rohrer, 2018) that prevent these and other results from generalizing to broader populations.

Results with conscientiousness are decidedly less mixed.

Getting high and being a person who very frequently gets high is associated with mostly small, yet robust reductions in people’s conscientious behaviors and traits. Interestingly and against popular depiction, chronic users who are
momentarily high or who get high daily are no less responsible or industrious than chronic users who are not high or who get high weekly.

We were also surprised by the lack of any hangover
effects. When we examined previously being high on current emotional, motivational, and conscientiousness states (controlling for currently being high), we found no robust associations. This was the case within the same day or
across to the next day. Our results are consistent with a recent systematic review of studies examining next-day cannabis effects, which found limited support for next-day cannabis effects on performance (McCartney et al., 2023).

For chronic cannabis users at least, there appears to be little weed hangover.

While we think the research here is a real advance over past work given its use of experience sampling, microlongitudinal design, and a large and diverse sample, it is not without limitations. The biggest challenge has to do with our sample. Our participants were recruited from
online forums that cater to cannabis enthusiasts and
growers, meaning our results might not generalize to
novice or to less frequent users. Not only were our participants very heavy users, but they also needed to show diligence and care to complete an effortful study protocol over 7 days. It is possible, therefore, that our sample was quite conscientious and not representative of the broader population of chronic cannabis users, meaning that
effects might be very different in broader samples.

Furthermore, as our study did not compare cannabis
users to nonusers, or even frequent to infrequent users, our analyses can only speak to the experience of chronic cannabis use.

Cannabis is currently having a moment, and we expect
it to only become more popular as laws and attitudes shift.

We hope the research community will rise to the challenge of these societal shifts by attendant shifts in research philosophy that has been too quick to pathologize use.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Emily Zohar, Victoria Oldemburgo de Mello, Aidan Campbell, Angela Smith, Laura Bustamante, Cypress Hill, Jeffrey Lebowski, and Naomi Sarah Ball for valuable insights.

Author Contributions
M.I. and T.B.S.-M. conceived and designed the study, T.B.S.-M. ran and implemented the study, G.J.D. analyzed the data, M.I. and G.J.D. wrote the manuscript, and M.I. and G.J.D. edited the manuscript.
10 Social Psychological and Personality Science 00(0)
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We would like to acknowledge generous support from grant #435- 2019-0144 from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada to M.I. and a SSHRC Doctoral
Fellowship to G.J.D.

ORCID iDs
Michael Inzlicht https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9297-6497
Greg John Depow https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9995-4143
Supplemental Material
The supplemental material is available in the online version of the article.

Notes

1. Design and technical limitations resulted in some cases where participants would complete the survey multiple
times from a single trigger. We therefore removed all surveys with a start time less than 60 minutes from the start time of the prior survey for that participant (n = 464
surveys).

2. Eighty-three participants had no variability in feeling high or not, being high all the time (n = 61) or never (n = 22).

They would therefore not be included in the estimation of within-subject effects but would be included in the calculation of between-subject effects. To address this discrepancy, we tested our between-subject effects with these 83 participants excluded and found that effects at the betweensubject level were robust to these exclusions.

3. Given how frequently our sample was high at any one
moment, we decided against restricting the sample to only those who are not currently high for the hangover analysis.

Instead, we opted to statistically control for currently being high to maximize power.

References
Abel, E. L. (1980). Marihuana: The first 12,000 years. Springer.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing.

Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01 Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B-Methodological, 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161. 1995.tb02031.x
Benschop, A., Liebregts, N., van der Pol, P., Schaap, R., Buisman, R., van Laar, M., van den Brink, W., de Graaf, R., & Korf, D.

J. (2015). Reliability and validity of the Marijuana Motives Measure among young adult frequent cannabis users and associations with cannabis dependence. Addictive Behaviors, 40, 91–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADDBEH.2014.09.003
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Marijuana and public health. https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/data-statistics.htm Crean, R., Crane, N. A., & Mason, B. J. (2011). An evidence based review of acute and long-term effects of cannabis use on executive functions. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 5(1), 1–8.

Cuevas Rivera, D., Strobel, A., Goschke, T., & Kiebel, S. J. (2020). Modeling dynamic allocation of effort in a sequential task using discounting models. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 14, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00242
Cuttler, C., & Spradlin, A. (2017). Measuring cannabis consumption: Psychometric properties of the Daily Sessions, Frequency, Age of Onset, and Quantity of Cannabis Use Inventory
(DFAQ-CU). PLOS ONE, 12(5), Article e0178194. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178194
Depow, G. J., Lin, H., & Inzlicht, M. (2022). Cognitive effort for self, strangers, and charities. Scientific Reports, 12, Article 15009. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19163-y
Earleywine, M., Mian, M. N., Altman, B., & De Leo, J. (2022).

Expectancies for cannabis-induced emotional breakthrough, mystical experiences and changes in dysfunctional attitudes:

Perceptions of the potential for cannabis-assisted psychotherapy for depression. Cannabis, 5(2), 16–27. https://doi.org/10. 26828/cannabis/2022.02.02
Edwards, L. J., Muller, K. E., Wolfinger, R. D., Qaqish, B. F., & Schabenberger, O. (2008). An R2 statistic for fixed effects in the linear mixed model. Statistics in Medicine, 27(29), 6137–6157. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3429
Ehrhart, K. H., Roesch, S. C., Ehrhart, M. G., & Kilian, B. (2008). A test of the factor structure equivalence of the 50-item IPIP five-factor model measure across gender and ethnic groups. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(5), 507–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802248869
Fredrickson, B. L. (2009). Positivity. Crown Publishers/Random House.

Green, J. A., O’Connor, D. B., Gartland, N., & Roberts, B. W. (2016). The Chernyshenko Conscientiousness Scales: A new facet measure of conscientiousness. Assessment, 23(3),
374–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115580639
Guay, F., Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). On the hierarchical structure of self-determined motivation: A test of top-down, bottom-up, reciprocal, and horizontal effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(8), 992–1004.

Hart, C. L. (2022). Drug use for grown-ups: Chasing liberty in the land of fear. Penguin Books.

Hofmann, W., & Patel, P. V. (2015). SurveySignal: A Convenient solution for experience sampling research using participants’ own smartphones. Social Science Computer Review, 33(2), 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314525117
Inzlicht, M., Werner, K. M., Briskin, J. L., & Roberts, B. W. (2021). Integrating Models of. Annual Review of Psychology, 72(1), 319–347.

Jeffers, A. M., Glantz, S., Byers, A., & Keyhani, S. (2021). Sociodemographic characteristics associated with and prevalence and frequency of cannabis use among adults in the US. JAMA Network Open, 4(11), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.36571 Inzlicht et al. 11
Kilwein, T. M., Wedell, E., Herchenroeder, L., Bravo, A. J., & Looby, A. (2022). A qualitative examination of college students’ perceptions of cannabis: Insights into the normalization of cannabis use on a college campus. Journal of American College Health, 70(3), 733–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481. 2020.1762612
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/ jss.v082.i13
Lindner, C., Lindner, M. A., & Retelsdorf, J. (2019). Measuring self-control depletion in achievement situations: A validation of the 5-Item Brief State Self-Control Capacity Scale. Diagnostica, 65(4), 228–242.

Looby, A., & Earleywine, M. (2007). Negative consequences associated with dependence in daily cannabis users. Substance Abuse: Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 2(1), 1–7. https:// doi.org/10.1186/1747-597X-2-3
Mackie, C. J., Wilson, J., Freeman, T. P., Craft, S., Escamilla, De, LaTorre, T., & Lynskey, M. T. (2021). A latent class analysis of cannabis use products in a general population sample of adolescents and their association with paranoia, hallucinations, cognitive disorganisation and grandiosity. Addictive Behaviors, 117, 106837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.106837 McCartney, D., Suraev, A., & McGregor, I. S. (2023). The ‘‘next day’’ effects of cannabis use: A systematic review. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, 8(1), 92–114. https://doi.org/10.1089/ can.2022.0185
Pacheco-Colo´n, I., Limia, J. M., & Gonzalez, R. (2018). Nonacute effects of cannabis use on motivation and reward sensitivity in humans: A systematic review. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 32(5), 497–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000380 Petrucci, A. S., LaFrance, E. M., & Cuttler, C. (2020). A comprehensive examination of the links between cannabis use and motivation. Substance Use and Misuse, 55(7), 1155–1164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2020.1729203
Reid, M. (2020). A qualitative review of cannabis stigmas at the twilight of prohibition. Journal of Cannabis Research, 2(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/S42238-020-00056-8/ME TRICS
Roberts, B. W., Lejuez, C., Krueger, R. F., Richards, J. M., & Hill, P. L. (2014). What is conscientiousness and how can it be assessed? Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 1315–1330. https:// doi.org/10.1037/a0031109
Rohrer, J. M. (2018). Thinking clearly about correlations and causation: Graphical causal models for observational data.

Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917745629
Rohrer, J. M., & Murayama, K. (2023). These are not the effects you are looking for: Causality and the within-/between-person distinction in longitudinal data analysis. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6(1), 25152459221140842.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Skumlien, M., Mokrysz, C., Freeman, T. P., Valton, V., Wall, M.

B., Bloomfield, M., Lees, R., Borissova, A., Petrilli, K., Giugliano, M., Clisu, D., Langley, C., Sahakian, B. J., Curran, H.

V., & Lawn, W. (2023). Anhedonia, apathy, pleasure, and effort-based decision-making in adult and adolescent cannabis users and controls. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 26(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijnp/pyac056 Statistics Canada. (2021). Canadian Cannabis Survey 2021. https:// www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/ cannabis/research-data/canadian-cannabis-survey-2021-summary.html#a2.2 Sullivan, E., & Austriaco, N. (2016). A virtue analysis of recreational marijuana use. Linacre Quarterly, 83, 158–173.

Sznitman, S. R., van Rijswijk, L., & Cousijn, J. (2022). Cannabis use as a predictor and outcome of positive and negative affect in college students: An ecological momentary assessment study. Addictive Behaviors, 128, 107221. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.addbeh.2021.107221
United Nations. (2020). World Drug Report 2020. https://wdr. unodc.org/wdr2020/en/index2020.html
Vele, K. C., Cavalli, J. M., & Cservenka, A. (2022). Effort-based decision making and self-reported apathy in frequent cannabis users and healthy controls: A replication and extension. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 44(2), 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2022.2093335
Vigil, J. M., Stith, S. S., & Chanel, T. (2022). Cannabis consumption and prosociality. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 1–9. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41598-022-12202-8
Volkow, N. D., Hampson, A. J., & Baler, R. D. (2017). Don’t worry, be happy: Endocannabinoids and cannabis at the intersection of stress and reward. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, 57, 285–308. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevpharmtox-010716-104615 Westbrook, A., Kester, D., & Braver, T. S. (2013). What is the subjective cost of cognitive effort? Load, trait, and aging effects revealed by economic preference. PLOS ONE, 8(7), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068210
Winters, A., Malouff, J. M., & Schutte, N. S. (2022). The association between the five-factor model of personality and problem cannabis use: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 193, 111635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-022-10119-5 Author Biographies
Michael Inzlicht is a Professor in the Department of
Psychology at the University of Toronto, cross-appointed at the Rotman School of Management. Michael completed
his B.Sc. in Anatomical Sciences at McGill University in 1994, his Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology at Brown
University in 2001, and his postdoctoral fellowship in
Applied Psychology at New York University in 2004.

Taylor Bridget Sparrow-Mungal is currently pursuing
her Juris Doctor degree at Osgoode Hall Law School. She completed her Honours Bachelor of Science degree at the University of Toronto in 2021.

Greg Depow is a Ph.D. candidate in Social Psychology at the University of Toronto. He earned his Master’s degree in Psychology from the University of Toronto in 2018, as well as a Bachelor of Arts with an honors extension in
Psychology and a minor in Applied Ethical Political
Philosophy from the University of the Fraser Valley in 2013.

Handling Editor: Rodica Damian
12 Social Psychological and Personality Science 00(0)
10 Lindsay Nelson
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 1:23 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: Letter of Support for WAMM, for inclusion with the agenda packet and for consideration at the May 14 City Council Meeting
Bonnie Bush
City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center St., Room 8, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Phone: 831-420-5035
Email:[email protected] Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com Begin forwarded message:

From: "M. Allen Hopper" <[email protected]>
Date: May 10, 2024 at 1:07:57 PM PDT
To: Fred Keeley <[email protected]>, Bonnie Bush <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Letter of Support for WAMM, for inclusion with the agenda packet and for consideration at the May 14 City Council Meeting
Dear Mayor Keely and Clerk Bush,
Following up on my email from Wednesday, Valerie Corral, Ben Rice and Dana McRae suggested that I reach out to you in support of the proposed cannabis dispensary at the site of the former Emily’s Bakery on Mission and Laurel Streets. At their invitation, I intend to offer public comments at the Council’s upcoming public meeting on May 14 and would request that I be allowed additional time for my comments, for a total of 5 minutes, if that is possible.

Thank you.
--Allen Hopper
Law Offices of M. Allen Hopper
415-450-5336 (cell)
[email protected]
On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 4:23 PM M. Allen Hopper <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
Valerie Corral, Ben Rice and Dana McRae suggested that I reach out to you in support of 11 the proposed cannabis dispensary at the site of the former Emily’s Bakery on Mission and Laurel Streets. At their invitation, I intend to offer public comments at the Council’s upcoming public meeting on May 14 and would request that I be allowed additional time for my comments, for a total of 5 minutes, if that is possible.

I also respectfully request that the attached letter be entered into the public record as additional written testimony/comments and distributed to the Councilmembers in advance of the May 14 meeting.

Thank you.

Allen Hopper
Attorney at Law
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Karli Adams <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 3:04 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Applicant KGBB DBA The Hook Santa Cruz
Dear Esteemed Members of the Santa Cruz City Council,
I am writing to reiterate my stance against the appeal targeting the application of KGBB DBA The Hook Santa Cruz, spearheaded by a vocal minority of well-intentioned but highly misinformed parents and educators.

The prospective establishment at 1129 Mission Street has diligently followed all legal protocols and regulations. They have cooperated extensively with the Santa Cruz High School Board, the concerned parents and educators, and yourselves in addressing these apprehensions. Through my own independent research, it's become clear to me that the school board's objection seriously lacks a factual basis.

While it's indisputable that cannabis use among minors should be discouraged, it is also crucial to acknowledge the rigorous measures legal dispensaries like The Hook undertake to prevent underage access. Stringent ID checks, security protocols, and surveillance systems are in place to prevent this occurrence.

Additionally, the illicit market poses far greater risks upon youth than legal cannabis dispensaries ever will. Teens most often resort to obtaining cannabis from the illicit market, exposing themselves to products that may be contaminated or laced with dangerous substances like fentanyl. If not from the illicit market, teenagers acquire cannabis within their own households, mirroring the method through which they access pharmaceuticals, alcohol, and nicotine products. Rather than obstructing a legal cannabis business, a more effective strategy to address adolescent cannabis use would require parents to foster open, transparent discussions with their children about the associated risks. A lack of conscientiousness from parents to engage in these conversations should certainly not be imposed on a legal business that has done their diligence to educate the community about safe cannabis use.

The proactive steps taken by The Hook to address community concerns are noteworthy. Their voluntary decision to raise the minimum purchasing age to 19, and their willingness to conceal their storefront and restrict signage exemplifies their commitment to responsible operation. Moreover, The Hook's collaboration with WAMM Phytotherapies shows immense dedication to supporting medical cannabis patients in Santa Cruz. WAMM's service is truly invaluable, as they provide free and legal cannabis to individuals with terminal or chronic illnesses. This clearly highlights the vital role of an accessible dispensary like The Hook, who are deeply committed to our sick and dying community members.

In light of these considerations, I implore the City Council not to be swayed by the fear tactics or misinformation in this appeal. Embracing the establishment of The Hook and its partnership with WAMM Phytotherapies at 1129 Mission Street is not only conducive to the community's well-being, but also reflects our values of compassion and inclusivity.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.
2 Karli Adams
Santa Cruz resident
3 Rosemary Balsley
From: Joshua Logan <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 4:52 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Letter in Support of the Dispensary at 1129 Mission Street Dear City Council and any member of the Public reading this, As an educator in our Santa Cruz community, I am writing to express my support for The Hook Outlet’s new dispensary at 1129 Mission St. Their comprehensive approach to mitigating potential impacts on youth, such as their age-related sales limitations and youth non-diversion program, demonstrates a clear commitment to the safety and well-being of our young people.

Their willingness to collaborate with the school board and community groups such as Community Prevention Partners and take additional steps to ensure that their operations do not negatively impact our youth is commendable. The Hook Outlet's responsible and proactive approach sets a high standard for cannabis dispensaries. I agree with Senator Laird who said recently that it is a "simple act of fairness" to allow the dispensary to move forward.

Sincerely,
Joshua Logan
Local Entertainer & Educator
SC Resident for 20+ years
Educator at Gateway School for over 6 years
Perform for Quest Camp Summer Program
Co-Founded Boardwalk Magic Shop
Advised the Founders of Made in Space
4 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jurij Kokolskyj <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 5:07 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Submission of Public Opinion Study Results on Proposed Dispensary Opening Dear Members of the City Council,
I conducted an informal online study to gauge public opinion on the proposed opening of the new dispensary on 1129 Mission Street. To do this, I gathered comments from three different platforms: Instagram, Nextdoor, and Reddit. These platforms provide a broad view of community sentiment and are widely used by residents.

The study collected a total of 288 comments from various posts discussing the new dispensary. Of these, 230 comments (79.86%) were in favor of opening the dispensary, while 58 comments (20.14%) were opposed.

These results suggest that a significant majority of commenters support the establishment of the new dispensary. I hope this information will assist in your deliberations regarding this proposal.

For reference, here are the links to the specific posts from which these comments were obtained, along with an attached compilation of community comments relevant to this topic:
•
•
• Nextdoor:
• Link
•
•
•
• Instagram:
• Link
• 1,
• Link
• 2,
• Link
• 3,
• Link
• 4,
• Link
• 5,
• Link
• 6
•
•
•
• Reddit:
• Link
• 1,
• Link
• 2,
• Link
5 • 3
•
Furthermore, I kindly request that this letter & the attached public comments be entered into public record for transparency and accessibility.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jurij Kokolskyj
Santa Cruz Resident
District 2
To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

CommentStudyForCityCouncil.pdf
To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

Social Media Comments for Public Record - 1129 Mission Street.pdf To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

CommentStudyForCityCouncilSources.pdf
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bryce Berryessa <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 5:20 PM
To: City Council; Bonnie Bush
Cc: Gavin Kogan; Kyle Giorchino; Valerie Leveroni Corral; Ryan Bane Subject: Appeal Rebuttal Letter and Supporting Documentation - WAMM Attachments: Appeal Rebuttal Letter May 10, 2024.pdf
Dear City Council,
Please take a look at the attached rebuttal letter to the appeal filed against our project at 1129 Mission St. on March 18th, 2024. We ask you to review it and that the attached be added to the agenda and entered into the public record.

Best Regards,
Bryce Berryessa

May 10, 2024
Santa Cruz City Council
℅ Bonnie Bush, City Clerk
809 Center Street, Rm 8
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: May 14, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting
1129 Mission Street: CP23-0106 (APN 006-493-27) Appeal of the Planning Commission Approval of an Administrative Use Permit to Establish a Cannabis Retail Facility on a Parcel in the MU-M (Mixed-Use Medium Density) Zone District and within the Mission Street Urban Design Plan. Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption 15301, Existing Facilities. Applicant: Bryce Berryessa. (PL)
Dear Members of Santa Cruz City Council,
We, the members of the AUP applicant (“WAMM”), respectfully write in opposition to the appeal submitted in opposition to the determination of the Planning Commission granting the Administrative use Permit to establish a cannabis retail facility at 1129 Mission Street (“Appeal”).

The fundamental basis of democracy is the trust and confidence the people have in their government." - Adlai Stevenson.

While appellants are well-intentioned, their position is flawed on the facts, wrong on and law, and they seek a decision that will gravely undermine public confidence in this governmental body’s fair and impartial application of the law - and in an era when such confidence is poignantly at risk. The issue before the City Council is not the health and safety of the public but squarely the public’s confidence in fair government.

Before this City Council are submitted the opinions of well-regarded state and local public servants, California Senators Mark Stone & John Laird, California Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, former County Supervisor John Leopold, former City Mayors Mike Rothkin & Emily Reilly and Capitola City Police Chief Andrew Daily,
1 each of whom has had to balance public
health and safety interests alongside the fair exercise of government authority. They uniformly implore this government body to grant the AUP, not primarily because they are in favor of WAMM’s history but primarily because the applicant has complied in all respects with applicable City law. Their principal concern is the public trust in the integrity of government. 1 See attached hereto as Exhibit A the Support Letters from Public Officials City Counsel Letter
May 10, 2024

Page 2 of 8 ends

Santa Cruz City CouncilMay 14, 2024

Santa Cruz City Council
May 14, 2024