LA Fights Back: Hundreds of Pot Clubs to close

[Ns1]

Dispensary operators say L.A. marijuana ordinance will harm patients
January 26, 2010 | 1:02 pm
Medical marijuana dispensary advocates assailed the Los Angeles City Council's vote today to approve a medical marijuana ordinance, saying the measure was unworkable and would dramatically restrict access to patients who need the drug.

The council voted 9-3 to pass the long-awaited measure without discussion, but supporters of medical marijuana then streamed to the microphone during the time for public comment. "It's a disaster for patients," said James Shaw, the director of the Union of Medical Marijuana Patients.

City Council members, however, expressed relief that an ordinance should soon be in place, even if it may require some changes. "I think we did our best to interpret the state law the way it is written," said Councilman Ed Reyes, who oversaw much of the ordinance's drafting.

The ordinance will allow most dispensaries that registered with the city in 2007 to continue to operate, a number that may be around 150. But those stores will still have to comply with the location restrictions, including being at least 1,000 feet away from schools, parks and libraries.

Many operators said today that they will be unable to find suitable locations because the City Council also added restrictions to keep the stores from abutting or being across an alley from residential property. Operators also said that landlords, aware that there are very few buildings that can meet the tight location restrictions, are already jacking up rents.

Barry Kramer, who runs California Patients Alliance, a registered collective on Melrose Avenue, said that he looked for eight months for a location that was not near schools and other sensitive uses before he opened 2½ years ago. Because of the alley restriction, he said he will be forced to move. "The frustration is that we've tried to work so hard, 2½ years of working with everything that they've brought down," he said. "Now, all those good operators are going to be cast aside."

The ordinance does not take effect until the City Council approves fees that dispensaries will have to pay, but the operators that have to move, which is most of them, are already racing to find locations. "We're scrambling right now," Kramer said. "No, we have not found anything."

Neighborhood activists, who have been vastly outnumbered at every City Council meeting, urged the lawmakers to act quickly to begin to enforce the ordinance. Lisa Sarkin, chairwoman of the Studio City Neighborhood Council land-use board, noted that there were 13 dispensaries in the area. "I can't imagine how this could be necessary," she said.

An organization representing medical marijuana collectives that registered with the city is considering hiring a well-connected lobbyist to pressure the City Council to make changes and a lawyer to investigate whether there are grounds to sue.

Dispensary operators who did not register, many of whom opened last year, are exploring whether to sue the city or collect signatures to force a referendum on the ordinance.

"We are prepared to go forward and stop this ordinance," said Dan Lutz, who operates the Green Oasis dispensary. "I regret that we have to go this route."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...ijuana-ordinance-will-harm-patients.html#more


This is ridiculous, 70-150 coops to serve an area as big as LA? The sad part is crime will probably rise due to this: 70-150 dispensaries now have to serve the entire MMJ region, means more crowds, more congestion, and what are likely to be rising costs? (not to mention a massive inventory...)

To boot, they could still get raided by the feds...

It'll be interesting to see if which coops can relocate. More importantly, they'll have to go from their current SAFE locations to BFE industrial areas.

On the other hand, this basically validates over the counter sales of marijuana...


I predict we'll see a more decentralized approach; people will stop opening up dispensaries, and will instead become "personal caregivers" and network like mad.

LA City Council OKs Pot Clinic Closures
Updated: Tuesday, 26 Jan 2010, 11:16 AM PST
Published : Tuesday, 26 Jan 2010, 11:13 AM PST

Text Story by:
CNS
Posted by: Dennis Lovelace

The Los Angeles City Council gave final approval today to a medical marijuana ordinance aimed at ending the proliferation of illegal dispensaries while giving qualified patients access to the drug.

The 9-3 vote represented the culmination of nearly three years of deliberations.

The ordinance sets a cap of 70 dispensaries in Los Angeles but temporarily allows more than double that number to stay open -- specifically, the 187 dispensaries that registered with the city before Nov. 13, 2007 -- provided they adhere to certain restrictions.

If any of the 187 dispensaries closes or goes out of business, it will not be replaced until the overall number is reduced to 70.

The ordinance requires dispensaries be at least 1,000 feet away from so- called "sensitive use" sites, namely schools, public parks, public libraries, religious institutions; licensed child care facilities, youth centers, rehab centers, and other dispensaries.

Instead of mandating a similar buffer between dispensaries and homes, the council agreed to merely bar dispensaries from being "on a lot abutting, across the street or alley from, or having a common corner with a residentially zoned lot or a lot improved with residential use."

To adhere to the 1996 Compassionate Use Act and 2003 Medical Marijuana Program Act, which prohibited the sale of medical marijuana, the ordinance states that "no collective shall operate for profit."

Rather, it allows "cash and in-kind contributions, reimbursements and reasonable compensation provided by members toward the collective's actual expenses for the growth, cultivation and provision of medical marijuana ... in strict compliance with state law."

To make sure collectives are not operating for profit, an independent certified public accountant would have to audit the collectives every year and submit the findings to the City Controller. Building and Safety inspectors and police officers would have to examine the location.

However, authorities cannot look into patients' records without a search warrant, subpoena or court order.

The ordinance requires collectives to be open between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. and enforce stringent security measures -- including bars on their windows, closed-circuit cameras, burglar alarms, and security guards patrolling a two- block radius around the location.

As an additional precaution, collectives cannot store more than $200 in cash overnight and would have to make twice-daily bank drops.

The council eliminated restrictions on how much medical marijuana can be stored at a dispensary, stating only that operators must cultivate the medical marijuana "in strict accordance with state law."

Patients can be a member of only one dispensary, though they may obtain medical marijuana from another dispensary in case of a medical emergency.

An operator can run only one dispensary in the city, and should not have been convicted of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude within the last ten years. Neither should he or she be on parole or probation for the sale or distribution of a controlled substance.

Independent and certified laboratories must test the medical marijuana regularly for pesticides and other contaminants. Operators may cultivate the medical marijuana on-site, provided the activity is not visible from the exterior of the building and measures are taken to prevent unauthorized entry.

Since Sept. 14, 2007, Los Angeles has had a temporary ordinance that banned dispensaries other than those which registered with the city before Nov. 13, 2007.

However, it had a loophole that enabled operators to open about 800 dispensaries across Los Angele

 

[Tab]

They're no longer raiding dispensaries, assuming they follow State and Local laws.

 

[Ns1]

They're no longer raiding dispensaries, assuming they follow State and Local laws.

They've said it before and have still done it.



In other news, MMJ limits ruled unconstitutional

California Supreme Court strikes down limits on medical marijuana possession
Excellent ruling made:

January 21, 2010 | 11:50 am
The California Supreme Court today struck down the state's limits on how much medical marijuana a patient can possess, concluding that the restrictions imposed by the Legislature were an unconstitutional amendment of a 1996 voter-approved initiative.

The decision means that patients and caregivers with a doctor's recommendation to use marijuana can now possess as much as is "reasonably related to the patient's current medical needs," a standard that the court established in a 1997 decision.

"I'm very pleased. They gave us exactly what we wanted," said Gerald F. Uelmen, a law professor at Santa Clara University who argued the case for Patrick K. Kelly, a medical marijuana patient from Lakewood who was convicted of possession and cultivation. "This makes it very clear that all of the rights of patients under the Compassionate Use Act are fully preserved."

The initiative did not limit the amount of marijuana that a patient could possess or cultivate other than to require it be "personal medical purposes."


In 2003, the Legislature passed a law intended to clarify the initiative and give guidance to patients and law enforcement officials. The Legislature decided that patients could have up to 8 ounces of dried marijuana and grow as many as six mature or 12 immature plants. The law also allowed a patient to have more if a doctor stated that amount was insufficient.

The court concluded that those restrictions improperly amended the Compassionate Use Act, which was approved by voters and includes no provision that allows the Legislature to amend it.

-- John Hoeffel

Source: LA Times

 

[Tab]

They've said it before and have still done it.

In other news, MMJ limits ruled unconstitutional

Link? The only disp. that have been raided since the DoJ announced they would end raids are those that haven't been complying with State and Local laws.

 

[Ozoned]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...ijuana-ordinance-will-harm-patients.html#more


This is ridiculous, 70-150 coops to serve an area as big as LA? The sad part is crime will probably rise due to this: 70-150 dispensaries now have to serve the entire MMJ region, means more crowds, more congestion, and what are likely to be rising costs? (not to mention a massive inventory...)

To boot, they could still get raided by the feds...

It'll be interesting to see if which coops can relocate. More importantly, they'll have to go from their current SAFE locations to BFE industrial areas.

On the other hand, this basically validates over the counter sales of marijuana...


I predict we'll see a more decentralized approach; people will stop opening up dispensaries, and will instead become "personal caregivers" and network like mad.

How many people in LA have a legitimate need for medical marijuanna? 1 in 1000??

 

[Jhhnn]

Anti-pot forces obviously won't go down easily, but they'll go down, given that they're pretty much snakebit...

George Washington reportedly smoked the stuff for his lumbago... lots of people suffer from the same malady today...

 

[Ns1]

How many people in LA have a legitimate need for medical marijuanna? 1 in 1000??

Define "legitimate"

Legitimate as in replacement for chemo?

Or legitimate as in replacement for tylenol?



I'm part of the latter group.

Wifey is part of the former.

 

[Ozoned]

Define "legitimate"

Legitimate as in replacement for chemo?

Or legitimate as in replacement for tylenol?



I'm part of the latter group.

Wifey is part of the former.

How about relief from chemo side effects, and the treatment of glaucoma.

 

[Ozoned]

Maybe it is a lot more than I think.

Rheumatoid arthritis 1 in 100. That is a lot of people in LA

 

[DrPizza]

How many people in LA have a legitimate need for medical marijuanna? 1 in 1000??

They're getting away with this: "Dr., I feel tense. I need something to help me ease the stress so that I don't end up with high blood pressure."

 

[Ns1]

They're getting away with this: "Dr., I feel tense. I need something to help me ease the stress so that I don't end up with high blood pressure."

joint pain.


I'm not sure if the MMJ helps with the pain but it sure as fuck makes me feel better.

 

[Patranus]

Isn't it ironic that California has some of the most liberal policies towards marijuana yet it has some of the strictest policies towards cigarettes.....

In any event, I can't wait until the federal government decides it needs to crack down on drugs and the DEA shuts these places down. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the federal government in terms of regulating drugs. Unless congress lifts the ban on marijuana, it is still illegal and city/county/state government should be held accountable.

 

[MotF Bane]

Isn't it ironic that California has some of the most liberal policies towards marijuana yet it has some of the strictest policies towards cigarettes.....

In any event, I can't wait until the federal government decides it needs to crack down on drugs and the DEA shuts these places down. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the federal government in terms of regulating drugs. Unless congress lifts the ban on marijuana, it is still illegal and city/county/state government should be held accountable.

And under what power does the federal government have the ability to regulate drugs? Feel free to provide either your opinion or the SCOTUS ruling.

 

[Ns1]

And under what power does the federal government have the ability to regulate drugs? Feel free to provide either your opinion or the SCOTUS ruling.

mother fucking fail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

 

[Vic]

Define "legitimate"

Legitimate as in replacement for chemo?

Or legitimate as in replacement for tylenol?



I'm part of the latter group.

Wifey is part of the former.

Sorry to hear about your wife.

Anyway, why are both not legitimate? Exactly what defines legitimate in this context?

BTW, I'm drinking a beer right now, solely for recreational purposes. How is that ok and yet someone doing the same with marijuana not?

 

[Vic]

Isn't it ironic that California has some of the most liberal policies towards marijuana yet it has some of the strictest policies towards cigarettes.....

In any event, I can't wait until the federal government decides it needs to crack down on drugs and the DEA shuts these places down. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the federal government in terms of regulating drugs. Unless congress lifts the ban on marijuana, it is still illegal and city/county/state government should be held accountable.

Small government! States rights!!

Mother fuckin' lying sack of shit hypocrite is what you are. You're possibly the worst big govt authoritarian on these forums, and that's saying a lot.

 

[Patranus]

And under what power does the federal government have the ability to regulate drugs? Feel free to provide either your opinion or the SCOTUS ruling.

I will provide a court ruling (though I do not agree with the justification)
This is a perfect example of the abuse of the commerce clause.
(Thank you FDR)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

 

[Patranus]

Small government! States rights!!

Mother fuckin' lying sack of shit hypocrite is what you are. You're possibly the worst big govt authoritarian on these forums, and that's saying a lot.

Again, I do not agree with the decision and in no way said I agreed with the decision.

 

[Vic]

They're getting away with this: "Dr., I feel tense. I need something to help me ease the stress so that I don't end up with high blood pressure."

The problem isn't that they're getting away with anything. The problem is that our govt is getting away with the drug war, at tremendous cost to the American people.

 

[Vic]

Again, I do not agree with the decision and in no way said I agreed with the decision.

Yes, you did.

In any event, I can't wait until the federal government decides it needs to crack down on drugs and the DEA shuts these places down. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the federal government in terms of regulating drugs. Unless congress lifts the ban on marijuana, it is still illegal and city/county/state government should be held accountable.

 

[Patranus]

The problem isn't that they're getting away with anything. The problem is that our govt is getting away with the drug war, at tremendous cost to the American people.

The problem with the argument put for by the "progressives" is that the justification used to make medical marijuana illegal is the same justification for almost all federal social programs.

 

[cubeless]

gotta love that they can't be near a school, etc, like a titty bar... a legit enterprise, eh?

 

[BrownTown]

Anyone selling marijuana or using marijuana is still in violation of the law no matter where they do it in this country. It just sickens me that this country has so many laws that they choose not to enforce some of the time and yet enforce so harshly other times. Either put everyone using marijuana in jail or put none of them in jail, it doesn't make sense to have a law if you don't enforce it.

Personally I don't give a crap if MJ is legal or not, I just hate the way the laws are applied. Its like the copyright laws where 1000 people brake them and 999 get off scot free and then number 1000 gets a 100,000 dollar fine.

That said, I don't really believe there is an medical reason why MJ should be legal and the supporters of legalizing MJ are 100% full of shit IMO for trying to use a medical excuse. They are just a bunch of potheads trying to use a tiny fraction of the people in this country who might have some legitimate reason for using MJ (like begin able to eat while on chemo) in order to legalize their own addiction.

 

[Vic]

The problem with the argument put for by the "progressives" is that the justification used to make medical marijuana illegal is the same justification for almost all federal social programs.

Which is what? Oh, that's right, you're just trying to change the subject for your usual partisan hackery. Try staying on topic, I don't give a fuck what you think that 'progressives' argue.

The problem with the drug war is that it's where 'conservatives' prove that they're just like 'progressives,' except on different issues. Just admit it, you love big govt... as long as it's something agree with, and you only hate big govt when it's something you don't agree with. And guess what? the 'progressives' you pretend such moral superiority over feel exactly the same way. You are no different.

 

[Vic]

<- pounds another Fat Tire, laments why those compassionate conservatives won't use the mighty power of the federal govt to save poor ol' me from my terrible 'addiction.'

:roll;