<< Commentary
12 • Bay Area Reporter • March 2-8, 2017
Spicer throws cold water on legal pot by Sari Staver
W
hile city and state lawmakers prepare legislative proposals to regulate the burgeoning recreational cannabis industry, the federal government is threatening to put a wrench in the process. In late February, with 44 bills pending in the California Legislature, the White House announced that federal law enforcement agents could be soon targeting the eight states, including California, that have legalized adult use of recreational marijuana. White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters February 23 that states should expect “greater enforcement” of federal marijuana laws under President Donald Trump’s Justice Department. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who heads the department, has long been opposed to marijuana. In his response, Spicer drew a distinction between legalized recreational marijuana and legalized medical cannabis. Twenty-five states, plus the District of Columbia, have legalized medical marijuana. “I do believe you’ll see greater enforcement” of federal law “with respect to recreational marijuana,” he said. It was the clearest and strongest warning yet that the Trump administration may move to disrupt the cannabis trade in states that have legalized the recreational use of pot. Spicer told reporters that the administration had no plans to continue the permissive approach of the Obama administration and that
Courtesy CNN
White House press secretary Sean Spicer
it viewed recreational cannabis as a violation of federal law. Spicer’s threat that the Justice Department could initiate enforcement actions in states that have legalized recreational pot – as California did last year when voters approved Proposition 64 – alarmed local officials. “Of course this administration ignores the will of California voters and the view of almost 60 percent of Americans who say recreational cannabis should be legal,” gay District 8 Supervisor Jeff Sheehy wrote in an email to the Bay Area Reporter. In Spicer’s comments to reporters, he compared cannabis to opioids. “When you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming around so many states ... the last thing we should be doing is
encouraging people,” he said. “There is still a federal law we need to abide by in terms of when it comes to recreational marijuana and other drugs of that nature.” Sheehy, who is HIV-positive and a medical cannabis patient, took issue with Spicer’s analogy. “The linkage to opioids is directly contradicted by facts,” wrote Sheehy to the B.A.R. Sheehy pointed out that according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, states with medical cannabis laws had a 24.8 percent lower opioid overdose mortality rate compared with states without medical cannabis laws. The article noted, “Examination of the association between medical cannabis laws and opioid analgesic overdose mortality in each year after implementation of the law showed that such laws were associated with a lower rate of overdose mortality that generally strengthened over time.” “As we medical cannabis users know, research has shown that medical cannabis provides safe, non-addicting, effective pain relief,” wrote Sheehy. “This is yet one more battle that San Francisco and California is prepared to have with this administration.” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) said he’s ready to safeguard the rights approved by 57 percent of voters in Prop 64, which allows California adults to possess,
transport, and buy up to an ounce of cannabis for recreational use. “I took an oath to enforce the laws that California has passed,” Becerra said in a statement after Spicer’s comments. “If there is action from the federal government on this subject, I will respond in an appropriate way to protect the interests of California.” And California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom (D), a leading supporter of Prop 64, took a similar approach, sending a letter to Trump urging him not to carry through with threats to launch a federal enforcement effort. “I urge you and your administration to work in partnership with California and the other ... states that have legalized recreational marijuana for adult use in a way that will let us enforce our state laws that protect the public and our children, while targeting the bad actors,” wrote Newsom.
Local pot department
On February 14, Sheehy asked the city attorney to draft legislation that would establish an independent department that would regulate the adult use of cannabis cultivation, sale, and distribution within San Francisco. Under current law, the Department of Public Health oversees medical cannabis use under Proposition 215, which state voters passed in 1996. Sheehy’s news release noted that no city office or agency is yet responsible for adult use of
t
recreational marijuana, which becomes legal on or before January 1. Sheehy’s office noted that, before Prop 64 passed last year, the Board of Supervisors formed the Cannabis State Legalization Task Force to advise the city on the matter. The panel issued its recommendations just before the election. Future legislation at the Board of Supervisors will incorporate these recommendations and public input, according to a statement from Sheehy’s office. In an interview with the B.A.R., Sheehy said that the new department would probably resemble the city’s Entertainment Commission and likely will have staff and volunteer commissioners. “Nothing is set yet,” he said. Meantime, there are 44 bills regarding cannabis now pending in the state Legislature. Six of the bills pertain to driving under the influence. Most of the others pertain to licensing and regulation, according to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Terrance Alan, chair of the San Francisco legalization task force, said, “The number of bills pending is indicative of all the complexities that must be worked out before January 1, 2018,” when the state anticipates cannabis will go on sale to adult users. “This is far from simple,” he said in an interview with the B.A.R.t Bay Area Cannasseur runs the first Thursday of the month. To send column ideas or tips, email Sari Staver at sari@bayareacannasseur.com.
Trio of non-binary gender changes granted in SF by Seth Hemmelgarn
A
trio of San Franciscans have changed their gender to nonbinary, becoming the first in the city to do so. The three people’s petitions, which were filed in December, were granted February 16 without hearings. David Strachan, 69, said he made the change because he has “an intersex condition,” and both his “sexual body” and his gender are neither male nor female. “I have a non-binary DNA makeup, and it just makes sense to have a non-binary gender on top
of it,” said Strachan, who identifies as “a non-binary, intersex person who’s in a relationship with a man.” Strachan added, “I’m almost 70, and to finally legally be able to do this is a joy for me. It leads the way to younger people being able to do it.” He also noted someone doesn’t have to be intersex or transgender “to have a non-binary gender identity.” Char Crawford, 32, who identifies as non-binary and a-gender and uses third-person pronouns, said that despite facing hurdles at agencies like the Social Security
Administration, which still only allows people to identify as male or female on its forms, “I’ve been elated. ... It’s been really wonderful actually to have this acknowledgement and recognition. It’s been extremely validating.” Crawford noted that Strachan and others have been working “for years” on having the non-binary option available. “The right thing to do is to have our law take into account those of us who are neither male nor female, because we’re a part of this society, and we live and work and organize in the community along with everyone else,” they said. Xin Farrish, whose gender was also changed to non-binary, didn’t respond to an interview request. In an email exchange, Toby Adams, executive and legal director for the Intersex and Genderqueer Recognition Project, which worked with the three to get their petitions granted, said that she and Strachan founded IGRP after he contacted her in 2011 “about legally changing his gender.” Others in Santa Cruz County and southern California have already had their gender legally changed to non-binary. Adams, a bisexual cisgender woman, said her group is working with three more people to have
their genders changed in Alameda County. “It’s a very exciting time for non-binary people in California right now, while simultaneously being a scary time for transgender youth in this country,” she said. “We in the LGBTQI community and our allies need to stand side-by-side with all trans and gender non-conforming” people, especially with the antiLGBT administration of President Donald Trump “showing their complete lack of support.” Courtesy David Strachan In an email to the Bay Area Reporter, San Fran- David Strachan cisco Superior Court specifically, but Donlan said, spokeswoman Ann Don“These decisions were his as lan said that Judge Joseph M. opposed to a court change in Quinn, who granted the petitions, process.” “made his decisions based on the Lesbian state Senator Toni Atfacts and the law as he understood kins (D-San Diego) and gay state them at the time. ... He is encourSenator Scott Wiener (D-San aged by [California Senate Bill Francisco) introduced SB 179 – 179] which, if passed and signed, the Gender Recognition Act of would make it easier to secure or2017 – in January. It would go ders granting non-binary status. into effect January 1, 2018 if apWhile obstacles – bureaucratic proved by the Legislature and and otherwise – may remain, signed by Governor Jerry Brown. the new law could ease the path The state would be the first in forward.” the country to have a third-gender Quinn, who is gay, couldn’t marker for non-binary people. t comment on the three cases
SF eliminated from Gay Games bidding by Roger Brigham
D
on’t expect San Francisco to host the Gay Games on the 40th anniversary of the inaugural Gay Games here. The regional bid to stage Gay Games XI in 2022 ended Tuesday, February 28, when the membership of the Federation of Gay Games cut the number of finalists it will consider to three: Hong Kong; Guadalajara,
Mexico; and Washington, D.C. “In writing our bid, we believed that as San Francisco was the site of the first Gay Games in 1982, our vision of respecting the past created a very special opportunity for FGG,” Ken Craig, co-president of the bid organized through San Francisco Bay Area Local Organizing Committee, said. “Along with the city and county of San Francisco’s pioneering efforts,
we would have created a sustainable path to the future. While we are disappointed not to be included in the final round, we wish the three candidate cities well and are confident that they will produce a worthy Gay Games for 2022.” A final vote on the host for 2022 will be made in October at the FGG membership meeting in Paris, host See page 15 >>