Auburn puts 1-year moratorium on pot gardens

On Monday the Auburn City Council unanimously slapped a one-year moratorium on the growing of collective marijuana gardens within city limits.

On Monday the Auburn City Council unanimously slapped a one-year moratorium on the growing of collective marijuana gardens within city limits.

City leaders took the step because as of July 22 collective cannabis gardens containing up to 45 plants have been legal under Washington State law, placing the state at odds with federal law.

Because the City does not yet have rules and regulations it could legally enforce as far as collective marijuana gardens, growers could have exploited the gap. And if they did, there would be no telling the federal government’s reaction, said City Attorney Dan Heid.

“My concern is that the federal Food and Drug Administration really needs to be involved in this, rather than pitting the state and the local jurisdictions against the federal government, that’s ridiculous,” Heid said.

“Growing marijuana is illegal under federal law, but the way the new law was enacted and then partially vetoed by the governor took out that piece that said growing pot is illegal,” said Auburn Mayor Pete Lewis. “So we put in a moratorium until we can figure out what to do about what the state did.”

Other cities, including Kent and Federal Way, recently have enacted similar moratoria.

The City will use the year to study medical marijuana dispensaries and the separate issue of collective marijuana gardens to see how Auburn’s law squares with state and federal law.

Earlier this year, the Auburn City Council enacted a similar moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries.

“There was a hole in the law, and we had not addressed it,” Lewis said. “We were notified in talking to the state that they knew that they had not adequately covered that particular area when we addressed smoke shops or places where you could buy medical marijuana. This addresses the growth of marijuana, period, which was left legal under the way the law was made and then partially vetoed.”

“It’s a disagreement between the legislators who passed the bill and the federal government,” said Dan Sytman, a spokesman for the Attorney General’s office, adding that it had nothing to do with the AG.