L.A. City Council panels reject ban on medical marijuana sales

Rejecting the advice of the city attorney, two Los Angeles City Council committees voted today to scrap a proposed provision that would have banned the sale of medical marijuana.

The controversial measure, first proposed a year and a half ago, delayed deliberations as council members debated the wisdom of ignoring the opinion of the city's top prosecutor. But about four hours into a raucous hearing, council members made it clear they were ready to move on.

"When can we finally stop the merry-go-round?" said Councilman Dennis Zine, who kicked off the City Council's consideration of the issue in 2005 when concerns about dispensaries first surfaced. He proposed an alternative provision that would allow dispensaries to accept cash for marijuana as long as they comply with state law.

William Carter, the chief deputy city attorney, repeatedly argued that state law and state court decisions make it clear that collectives can cultivate medical marijuana but not sell it. "We're stuck with the current law," he said.

But Zine urged the council members to adopt an interpretation of the law that would not upend how dispensaries operate in Los Angeles and most of the state. "I'm saying let's push that to the edge," he said.

After the members of the planning committee and Public Safety Committee voted, David Berger, a special assistant to City Atty. Carmen Trutanich, said it is up to the council to decide whether to accept the office's legal advice. "Our duty is to advise them on what the law allows for and not to go on a whim," he said. "They decided to go a different way."

Councilman Ed Reyes, who has overseen most of the council's consideration of the issue, expressed exasperation with the city attorney's office. "I think they are very, very narrow in that they're taking their prosecutorial perspective," he said.

The long-delayed measure could be taken up by the full council as soon as Wednesday. "We need something on the books now. There is no reason why we should delay," Reyes said.

Four years ago, when the City Council first began to look into regulating dispensaries, there were four. A year later, there were 98. In 2007, when the city adopted a moratorium, 186 dispensaries were allowed to remain in business. Now, the city attorney's office estimates there could be as many as a thousand spread throughout the city, and heavily concentrated in some neighborhoods.

At the hearing, scores of dispensary operators and marijuana users argued that the proposed ban would force them to close. "It simply won't work," said Don Duncan, a Los Angeles resident who is the California director of Americans for Safe Access.

A vote for a sales ban would have taken Los Angeles into uncharted legal territory. Duncan's organization and the Union of Medical Marijuana Patients threatened to sue the city if the council adopted the provision, arguing that the city attorney's opinion was flawed.

About 400 people crowded into the main council chamber for the hearing. Most of the speakers were supporters of medical marijuana who became increasingly rowdy. They repeatedly interrupted the handful of neighborhood activists who spoke, urging the adoption of an ordinance that would reduce the number of dispensaries and clamp down on operations that create nuisances.

"Do the right thing. Protect your community. You're going to get sued anyway," said James O'Sullivan with the Miracle Mile Residential Assn.

-- John Hoeffel at City Hall

Comments

[Cut fraud]

The City Council idiots did what they have done for years. NOTHING.

[Super90]

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and it's not working for marijuana. It doesn't harm anyone and anyone who says it does is lying.
The time has come to stop the madness and LEGALIZE IT.

[david]

The City Council is FINALLY realizing that this City Attorney and his gofers like Carter and that mean-mouthed David Berger (who ran for the office and got this job only because he nastily attacked jack Weiss everywhere for Trutanich like some carnival barker) are OUT FOR THEMSELVES, trying to make a name as some sort of "tough" Republican vigilantes AGAINST the wishes of the general public and the law of California. The law as interpreted by the State Courts, State Attorney General Brown, and other cities which have successfully managed to keep some law-abiding shops open while closing down the rest.

Trutanich SWORE to the pro-medical cannabis community to uphold THEIR views in order to trick them into working FOR his campaign - we worked IN DROVES calling, walking precincts, blogging and getting our friends to vote. We were thrilled he won and the day after our blogs were full of excitement, check out aboutmedicalmarijuana.com, the blogs of the ASA (Americans for Sane Access), GLACA (the caregivers' group) etc.

NOW we know he lied to us on purpose like he did to Laura Chick on the Controller issue, always planned to throw us under the bus after he used us. THAT is even worse, speaks volumes about the "character" of this character.

Check out waronme.blogspot.com especially the 10/13 post when we realized he lied on purpose to use our money and passion, for one person's view shared by many of us,

[Michael De Marco]

John Hoeffel has written a journalistic gem in the above paragraphs. Thank you so much John for writing a report that mirrors exactly what happened at the Committee meeting today. The Council is finally trying to get to the bottom of this and they realize that they are legally at a disadvantage as to whether or not they can ban sales or give privileges to post/pre ICO collectives. They are finally starting to back down the city Attorney which is the most important part to this whole equation. The CA has been wrongfully advising Council members and they should be applauded for finally putting the CA's in their place. Cant wait for the hearing on WED. November. 18th. Our voices will be heard once and for all.

[Jane Doe]

First off, the City Attorney was put in their place today and hopefully the Council will take on the responsibility of writing the proper ordinances. Terms and language are the most important parts of the ordinance which was what the Council/Committee spent most of their time today doing. They are trying to define the terms (sales, zoning, reimbursement, compensation, etc) so that there can be little wiggle room left for "open" interpretation. Since the superior court Judge recently ruled that LA's ban on dispensaries was illegal there cannot be a legal distinction between PRE/POST ICO collectives. The City Attorney is also retreating on their interpretation of the Mentch case moreover, leaving lots of room for the council to determine and regulate what reasonable over-the-counter compensation is. Ed Reyes concluded the meeting today with about 15 unresolved issues with he new ordinance. The Committee today voted to have the meeting WED. to hopefully vote on a final ordinance with the entire LA City Council. Even if a final ordinance is drafted/adopted we the people have 30 days to stop it. In these 30 days we must acquire roughly 75,000 signature to stop the ordinance from being passed. There are many outs, resources, and miracles that our community still has to fight the City with and our voices will be heard.

[Jane Doe]

The D.A. and C.A. offices need to get over the fact that money has to change hands for medicine. This was a big sticking point for them: "No Cash transactions should be allowed." What pharmaceutical companies give out only free medicine? They also say it is not legal to tax MMJ so the state and city could have to pay back every penny of the the tax money they already collected from the collectives.

[Dorothy Day]

YAY!!!!!!!

[Jeffery P. Segall, RN]

As a former oncology nurse, I have seen MMJ be the difference of life and death in cancer patients. In wasting syndrome with AIDS (or any disease) it has meant the difference of life or death. In MS patients it means the difference of intense pain to alleviated pain. In migraine sufferers it helps makes life liveable. Mr. Trutanich lied before the election and is now sticking his nose where it doesn't belong as he plays political whore. I sincerely hope he never suffers from these diseases--he may find what goes around comes around.

What is wrong with a government that allows it's people to live in pain?

[Mario R]

So the marijuana defenders "repeatedly interrupted the handful of neighborhood activists who spoke, urging the adoption of an ordinance that would reduce the number of dispensaries and clamp down on operations that create nuisances."? That tells me everything I need to know about the marijuana defenders. They are anti-neighborhood, anti-civility, and pro-nuisances. I hope all of their dispensaries get banned.

[ras chadrack]

what can the man say or do ? the people have spoken ! now its time they do there job or we should help them find another ! power to the people of this great country . this is suppose to be a country where they do what we say not the other way around - just a word from the bottom of the pile . respect!

[Erik Self]

...HELLO IS THERE ANY INTELLIGENT LIFE OUT THERE?...TO DO ANY THING LESS THAN TO LEAVE THIS SITUATUION STATUS QUO WOULD BE TO EMBOLDEN AND INCREASE SALES FROM THE ILLEGAL MEXICAN MAFIA, THEY WOULD BE THE ONLY TRUE BENEFACTORS OF ANY PROPOSED MEASURE TO SLOW OR STOP MARIJUANA SALES IN CALIFORNIA...GOODNIGHT YA'LL! ERIK SELF

[Confused]

So, how will the city council:
1. Ensure efficacy, potency, safety if the supply side isn't regulated?
2. Ensure drug cartels are not involved if cash sales are allowed?
3. Ensure that only those with (quoting the state law) "seriously ill Californians" have access?
4. Prevent resale to minors absent any tracking system?
5. Ensure safety of hillsides and other potential growing areas if the supply side isn't regulated?
6. Ensure that neighborhoods are not overrun by dispensaries?
7. Study the cost of enforcement and the cost of smoking-related healthcare costs before assuming that a tax will result in ANY net revenue?
8. Study the environmental impacts of growing crops in non-agricultural areas?

There are many more questions that need to be answered.

One of the key questions: What kind of person ignores the advice of their attorney? The answer to that one is easy: A foolish person.

[bob]

WHY ARE THE DISPENSARY/COLLECTIVE PRICES FOR MARIJUANA THE SAME AS STREET PRICES ? THERE IS SOMETHING STARTING TO SMELL REALLY BAD ABOUT THESE SO CALLED "COLLECTIVES".
Seems odd. The collective prices should be lower than street prices or non existent.
If they aren't supposed to be able to sell it then they shouldn't be selling it.
They should be giving it to the members or accepting a donation.

Im a legal smoker but lately when I go to the dispensaries Im starting to get the sleazy drug dealer vibes from these tools.
ONCE AGAIN -- HOW CAN THE COLLECTIVE PRICES ALL BE BASICALLY THE SAME AS EACH OTHER AND ALSO THE SAME AS STREET PRICES?

[JEFFERY P. SEGALL, RN]

"So the marijuana defenders "repeatedly interrupted the handful of neighborhood activists who spoke, urging the adoption of an ordinance that would reduce the number of dispensaries and clamp down on operations that create nuisances."? That tells me everything I need to know about the marijuana defenders. They are anti-neighborhood, anti-civility, and pro-nuisances. I hope all of their dispensaries get banned.

Posted by: Mario R | November 16, 2009 at 04:09 PM"

So, tell me Mario...How do you feel about the teabaggers who never let anybody make a point and shout so loud nobody can hear what is being said? According to your statement, you should be against them too. People take extreme measures when forced to live in pain.

[Chaos]

I love this !

[Booya]

Most dispensaries make appx $25 million/quarter year. that's why most have an armed guard. Legalize.TAX them!! And get L.A. out of debt. Sound easy???

[Against Pot]

I can't believe that in this day and age it's legal to be a pothead. Pot is a gateway drug. It should be banned completely.

[CHERRY]

THESE COLLECTIVE OWNERS ARE ALL STARTING TO SEEM REALLY SLEAZY.
WHEN YOU GO VISIT A COLLECTIVE YOU SIGN PAPERWORK GIVING THEM THE RIGHTS TO GROW YOUR LEGAL 6 PLANTS.
SO WHY ARE THE PRICES ALL THE SAME ???
WHY ARE THE COLLECTIVE PRICES THE SAME AS STREET PRICES?
DOES THAT MEAN THEY ARE ALL PAYING THE EXACT SAME RENTS AND HAVE THE EXACT SAME EXPENSES TO GROW?
THATS IMPOSSIBLE!

[westsidejesse]

Hey Mario R, did you read the article? Your neighborhood is loosing, and us potheads are winning! LEGALIZE IT!

[Mom for regulation]

"What came first; the Chicken or the egg?" was a question that was asked a few times today during the PLUM session in Council Chambers. And after today's decision by two City Council Committees to ignore City Attorney Trutanich's well written ordinance that followed the letter of the California State Law I think the answer is clearly the Chicken City Council came first and laid a rotten egg of a law.

[Josh]

Mario, you see what you want to see. This is about people having the liberty to choose how they want to live. Smoking pot does not infringe on your rights in any way.

[AnonLA]

Right, Mario, and ANTI-Marijuana advocates have NEVER been vocal or disruptive.... GMAB

[Gaucho420]

Bravo, bravo. Logic & common sense finally rule.

[7pesos]

what would america do without the christian do-gooders?

the conservatives think they are saving america.

what would we do without those creeps?

no more war, no more drug gangs, no more conservatives.

get rid of those right wing christian snakes.

we'll all be better off.

[oh_hai_then]

"They repeatedly interrupted the handful of neighborhood activists who spoke,"

Um, incorrect. The crowd erupted once, were warned, then were calm. Get the facts straight please.