The Oakland City Council’s Public Safety Committee should have at least two items on hand when it meets at 6 p.m. Tuesday to debate changes to the “equity” permits in its new medical cannabis regulations: An update on state medical cannabis legislation and a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

A pot of strong coffee might also help, because it will be a long night reworking the legislation — which includes important social justice goals — so that it does not end up driving cannabis business from Oakland and discriminate against far more individuals than it helps.

There’s still time to make changes. The city administrator’s office has yet to issue medical cannabis permit applications and is looking for guidance from the City Council and the city attorney’s office to address serious problems with the new permitting program. It’s worth the effort. Oakland has long been a perceived leader in the cannabis legalization movement and in the fight for social justice. If Oakland is for real, it should be able to get this right.

In May, Oakland approved rules to regulate its medical marijuana industry, including dispensers, cultivators and manufacturers. These approvals give the city a head start and some local control over medical cannabis permitting, which must be in place when new state laws take effect in 2018. Without a local permit, medical cannabis businesses cannot get a state license and can’t operate.

Public Safety Committee Chair Desley Brooks has said the equity rules are intended to assist lower-income communities of color that have been disproportionately impacted by marijuana law enforcement. Studies show that blacks are almost four times as likely to be arrested for pot possession as whites even though they use the drug at roughly the same rates — the Oakland police-beat-arrest data reflect the national stats.

Now that more complete state rules regulating medical cannabis are being implemented and legalization of adult recreational cannabis is on the November ballot, many believe that cities must give a leg up to communities of color unfairly targeted by police for marijuana offenses and as a result, shut off from the same business opportunities as whites. Equity proponents note that of Oakland’s eight medical pot dispensaries, only one is run by African Americans and none by Latinos.

I believe that the goals underpinning equity permits are commendable. However, the way they have been handled at the City Council has been anything but. Brooks, who represents part of East Oakland on the City Council, has led the effort, and her approach has been divisive. More importantly — and ironically — it has been discriminatory.

Brooks added the equity amendments after the ordinances had been 18 months in the making and threatened to strand the legislation at committee if her terms were not met.

Those terms imposed unnecessary burdens, from a business standpoint. Worse, they exclude many of the residents historically targeted for marijuana arrests — precisely those that Brooks claimed to want to help. As Brooks designed it, only residents living within six of the police department’s 57 beats are eligible. A quick snapshot of the equity program as it stands shows its serious flaws.

Half of all Oakland medical cannabis business permits are reserved for companies that meet these criteria:

•50 percent ownership by a resident of one of six East Oakland police beats that had a high number of marijuana arrests, based on 2013 data.

•Or 50 percent ownership by an Oakland resident incarcerated for marijuana-convictions arising out of Oakland during the past decade.

•At all times, the number of equity permits issued must be at least equal to the number of non-equity permits. This means that fully compliant non-equity applicants could wait indefinitely if there are not enough equity applications approved.

The most obvious problem with the 50 percent-ownership requirement is that it handicaps business owners who want a permit but may not know anyone from the selected police beats or an Oakland resident incarcerated for a pot offense. And the requirement is not consistent with current state law.

Here is where the update from Sacramento comes in: In August, a bill legalizing for-profit cannabis operations died on the state Senate floor. That bill was intended to bridge the old state regulations — which barred for-profit pot businesses — with the new state rules that allow them, but won’t go into effect until 2018. When the bill failed, the pot industry was forced to use the old rules for two more years.

It goes without saying that Brooks’ 50 percent ownership rules don’t make a lot of sense when cannabis businesses can’t make a profit. What does “ownership” mean in that context and how are equity goals achieved? More importantly, no social justice policy will be taken seriously if it excludes equally deserving individuals in favor of others, with no rational basis for doing so.

In a display of extraordinary cynicism, Brooks has insinuated that those who question her preference for East Oakland residents are racist.

The U.S. Constitution would be a useful guide to undoing Brooks’ patently discriminatory preferences for East Oakland residents. Specifically, Article IV, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, precludes discrimination based on residence when government offers no substantial reason for the difference in treatment or it does not bear a substantial relationship to the government’s objectives. The California Constitution also protects the right to migrate, resettle and find a new job.

The only reason offered by Brooks for singling out East Oakland residents is that in 2013, six East Oakland police beats saw a disproportionate percentage of marijuana arrests. Brooks pushed her agenda despite years of data showing many more than six of the city’s 57 police beats suffered a disproportionate percentage of marijuana arrests, including a number of beats in West Oakland.

A group led by Matt Hummel, the chairman of Oakland’s Cannabis Regulatory Commission, has offered amendments the Public Safety Committee is scheduled to consider Tuesday. Among them are to make an additional 13 police beats eligible for the permits and to include Oakland residents incarcerated anywhere in California. Adopting the amendments won’t perfect the legislation, but it will make it more credible. Tax breaks and business assistance for entrepreneurs from impacted areas are two ideas of many to also consider.

Unfortunately, Brooks and two council colleagues just last week proposed amendments that are counter to additional constitutional principles, including demanding partial city ownership from pot businesses in exchange for a city permit.

Turning around Oakland’s troubled medical cannabis permitting rules will be challenging, given the many legal issues and the cynical way they have been approached. The Constitution will be a useful guide. Thick skin and strong backbones also will be needed.

Robert Selna is an Oakland land-use attorney. To comment, submit your letter to the editor at http://bit.ly/SFChronicleletters.