Any question whether medical marijuana dispensaries would be able to join the ranks of Sumner’s licensed businesses returned under the cover of smoke Jan. 17. The City Council voted unanimously to affirm an ordinance enacting a six-month moratorium on issuing business licenses and allowing land or building use for marijuana dispensaries.

The ordinance was a response to the lack of clarity regarding the legality of dispensaries in state law, City Attorney Brett Vinson said.

“(This) is an ordinance the council passed a year ago imposing a moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries,” Vinson said. “In January last year, another initiative was passed by the state legislature—in the Senate—that further enacted provisions for medical marijuana. Gov. Chris Gregoire vetoed major parts of that item, and the result was that it left local and state municipalities somewhat in flux as to what they should do.”

In 2011, the state legislature changed certain requirements for patients, designated providers and health care providers regarding medical cannabis.

Doctors belonging to a list of approved health care providers are allowed to discuss the benefits and risks of cannabis with patients suffering from certain symptoms of cancer, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C anorexia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, glaucoma, Crohn’s disease and other “forms of intractable pain.” Said patients are allowed to receive a doctor’s recommendation for cannabis use on tamper proof paper and register with the state Department of Health. The proof of that registration can be presented to a state law enforcement officer as a safeguard against arrests for possession. The patient is allowed to have no more than 15 plants and 24 usable (read: harvested)ounces of pot, and the patient can specify a designated provider of medical marijuana.

So what’s the problem?

As it turns out, there are quite a few problems.

First is the extent of the role of designated providers. The RCW on designated providers is explicit that the plant-possession limit holds true for that person. However, the law is not adequately clear whether someone can be a designated provider for multiple patients. The law states that someone who is both a patient and provider can have no more than twice the allowable limit for one person. If the current law is ever determined to allow for multiple patients, one can assume supply would be strictly determined by the number of patients.

Furthermore, the law says nothing about the sale of medical marijuana.

That could become a point of legal liability given that possession and sale of cannabis remain illegal in the eyes of the federal and, indeed, the state criminal justice system.

“A patient could still be arrested and charged with possession,” Vinson said. “If a patient has a medical marijuana card, the statute calls for an affirmative defense against possession charges.”

The Sumner ordinance called for a public hearing on the matter of dispensaries within 60 days of Jan. 17.

Councillor Randy Hynek expressed concern that the City Council might be dragging its feet on the issue.

“I am a proponent of alternative medicine and it is a fact that a significant number of people are getting cancer,” Hynek said. “And marijuana provides benefits (for cancer patients). I’m concerned about the people with cancer in Sumner. We’ve had nothing on this issue in a year. We need to act.

“It does need to be regulated and specified where it goes. It shouldn’t be near a school, for instance.”

Councillor Cindi Hochstatter inquired whether other cities had allowed dispensaries, and whether those could be alternative sources for Sumner patients.

Vinson said there had been other cities tolerant of operational dispensaries, but that at least a few operators had been arrested for the sale and possession of cannabis.

“Since there seems to be a blur between state and federal law on medical marijuana, would acceptance or non-acceptance bring liability to the city?” Councillor Nancy Dumas asked.

“Let me be clear that there is no liability that could flow to the city by adopting this ordinance (to place a moratorium),” Vinson responded.

Citizen Joe Gerace, speaking in public comment on the matter, expressed skepticism on the non-liability of a continuing moratorium.

“Renton had a moratorium on adult businesses, a continuing moratorium, and that issue went all the way to the Supreme Court,” he said. “We can’t keep tabling it and not talking about it; it’s the not talking about it that’s a problem for me.

“We need to set some guidelines so we’re not passing the buck on this one. It’s a big ticket issue.”