Information

Subject: WHY Are We Rolling Back Protections for Children, Families, and Vulnerable Populations around marijuana dispensaries in marijuana consumption lounges?

Dear Sacramento,

I want to ask a very simple question:

Why?

Why are we here?
Why are we even having this conversation?
Why are we considering rolling back protections that have been in place for over a decade—protections that were intentionally designed to safeguard children, families, and vulnerable populations?

And most importantly—

Why are we now considering allowing marijuana dispensaries and on-site consumption smoke lounges to locate directly next to the very places we have always agreed should be protected?

For years, the City of Sacramento established clear, common-sense boundaries—sensitive-use buffers—to ensure that marijuana-related businesses were kept at a safe and appropriate distance from environments where children gather, families live, and vulnerable individuals seek care and stability.

These were not arbitrary rules.
They were not accidental.
They were deliberate safeguards.

So I ask again—

Why are we undoing them?

Why are we talking about allowing these uses next to:

* Churches and places of worship, where children attend services, youth groups, and community programs
* Parks and recreational areas, where families gather and children play
* After-school programs and youth-serving facilities, where kids go every single day for development, mentorship, and safety
* Residential neighborhoods, where families are raising children and building their lives
* Drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers, where individuals are actively fighting addiction and trying to rebuild their lives
* Childcare centers and school-adjacent environments, specifically designed to protect early childhood development

Why are we even opening the door to place marijuana storefronts—and more importantly, active smoking lounges—directly next to these environments?

Because this is not theoretical.

This is not abstract policy language.

This is real-world proximity.

Children will see it.
They will walk past it.
They will be next to it.

And in the case of smoke lounges—
they will be next to environments where marijuana is actively being consumed.

So again—

Why?

Why are we normalizing exposure at younger and younger ages?

Why are we increasing the risk of impaired driving in areas where families and children are present?

Why are we placing individuals in recovery directly next to environments where marijuana is actively used—knowing full well the risk of relapse that creates?

Why are we allowing the clustering of high-cash, high-target businesses into residential and youth-centered areas—when we already acknowledge the risks by requiring armed security guards at dispensaries?

Let that sink in.

The City itself recognizes the risks associated with these businesses to such a degree that it mandates armed security.

So if those risks are real—and they are—

Why would we move these uses closer to children, not farther away?

Why would we reduce distance instead of increasing it?

Why would we weaken protections instead of strengthening them?

And why are we replacing clear, enforceable buffers with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)—when we already know a CUP does not guarantee protection?

A CUP is not a safeguard.
A CUP is a process.

It allows a project to be reviewed—but it does not prevent incompatible uses from being approved.

We have already seen this fail.

We have seen projects approved in direct proximity to sensitive uses despite community opposition.
We have seen decisions made that prioritize development over compatibility.

So again—

Why are we going backwards?

These protections have worked for over a decade.

They created:

* Consistency
* Predictability
* Distance
* A baseline level of safety across every neighborhood in Sacramento

They ensured that no matter where you lived, your children, your home, your church, your park, or your recovery center had a basic level of protection.

And now—

we are not talking about improving those protections.
We are not talking about refining them.

We are talking about removing them.

Why?

Why now?

What has changed so significantly that justifies this shift?

Because from a public health and safety standpoint, the concerns are not decreasing—they are increasing.

We know:

* Impaired driving remains a serious and ongoing risk
* Youth exposure to marijuana increases the likelihood of early use
* Individuals in recovery are vulnerable to environmental triggers
* High-cash businesses can attract crime and create spillover impacts

These are not opinions.
These are widely understood realities.

So again—

Why are we moving in the opposite direction?

Why are we introducing greater proximity, greater exposure, and greater risk into environments that were intentionally protected?

And perhaps the most important question—

Who benefits from this?

Because it is not children.
It is not families.
It is not individuals in recovery.

It is certainly not the communities who have relied on these protections for years.

This is not just a policy discussion.

This is a decision about values.

A decision about priorities.

A decision about what kind of city—and what kind of region—we want to be.

Do we continue to protect children, families, and vulnerable populations?

Or do we accept placing them directly next to environments involving smoking, impairment, and exposure?

Do we maintain common-sense safeguards that have worked?

Or do we dismantle them and hope that a discretionary process will somehow replace what has been a clear and enforceable standard?

Because once these protections are gone—

they are gone.

And the impacts will not be theoretical.

They will be visible in our neighborhoods.
They will be felt by families.
They will be experienced by those in recovery.

And they will be difficult—if not impossible—to reverse.

So I ask you again—

Why are we doing this?

And more importantly—

Is this a decision you can clearly explain and justify to the families, the parents, the faith communities, and the individuals in recovery who rely on these protections every single day?

Because if the answer is not clear—

if the reasoning cannot be confidently explained—

then that should be a signal.

A signal to pause.
A signal to reconsider.
A signal to protect what has already been working.

I urge you—strongly and respectfully—

Maintain all existing sensitive-use buffers.
Do not weaken them.
Do not replace them with discretionary processes that do not guarantee protection.

Stand with the communities that rely on these safeguards.

Because if we cannot clearly answer “why,”
then we should not be making this change.

Sincerely