Monthly Archives: January 2013

What the hell is going on in LA?

The following link depicts an impressive example of what’s happening in the real world: http://www.modestopress.com/another-pot-bust-stanislaus-county-dea-remove-over-1600-marijuana-plants/2755/ Production in the rural counties is expanding rapidly and any currently proposed regulatory scheme will circumvented to the extent that it’s possible to do so at a profit. There are places in the Bay Area where one may safely and conveniently access a qp from a street vendor, and that kind of availability is coming to a neighborhood near you real soon, no problem. As it is I’d doubt that as much as 25% of the weed consumed in this state reaches the consumer through the dispensary system. Is there any use in troubling oneself over the fact that there are people out there who are making a lot of money selling weed? On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Donna Lambert <s..3@yahoo.com> wrote: > MONOPOLY – NOTHING TO DO WITH MED CANNABIS OR PATIENTS, EVERYTHING TO DO > WITH MONEY > *A Coercive monopoly is a form of monopoly with which companies can > operate in a given sector without any influence from competitive forces, > because all potential market players are blocked from entering*. > *Coercive monopoly* is contrary to non-coercive monopoly, in that the > future of the monopoly is dependent on the measures taken to preserve the > status quo. So in order to maintain the monopoly position, a firm must > always consider the market dynamics at playand act accordingly. > Popular measures associated with this practice include adjusting prices > and improving the production decisions, for instance, by *pulling down > prices to forestall any possibility of the other competitors penetrating > the market.* > Such a monopoly is also known as the efficiency of monopoly, because if > the potential competitors can not afford to be more effective production > wise, then they would find it* hard to compete against the current > monopoly.* > *Some argue that the only way for a business concern to effectively shut > out any potential market entrants, and be in a position to raise prices > freely without competitive worries. The firm needs the support and > assistance of the government in > curbing competition, otherwise prices will have to stay low.* > When a company badly need to succeed in the use of coercion, thus > effecting a compulsory monopoly through denial of all possibility for > potential competition. It may* resort to illegal or non-financial > instruments such as blackmail to reach a compulsory monopoly position*. A > company can also achieve this through *non-coercive means which include > taking suitable action directly in the market, beating all other > competitors to achieve monopoly target.* > *Once the company becomes the sole provider, it will be better placed to > deal with issues of establishing effective entry obstacles.* This form of > monopoly was one of the most famous examples of the United States in the > 1920s. > *Direct government monopoly, involves a monopoly owned by the government > itself,* and those who manage the government monopoly under the command > of the government departments. While a government-authorized monopoly, is a > compulsory monopoly granted by law, but the monopoly of ownership pertain > to private companies authorized by the government, the decision-making > process is carried out by these private companies. > * > Government-granted monopolies tend to be identical to government monopolies > * in several ways, but the two can be separated on the grounds of the > decision-making structure of the monopolist. Oil producing countries, are > good examples when it comes to the development of state-owned oil firms, > which are fairly common in countries such as Saudi Arabia‚Äôs (Aramco), > Venezuela (PDVSA), these monopolies are designed with state nationalization > of natural resources in > > > http://theweedlynews.com/?p=15030 > > *From:* Bud <c..s@gmail.com> > *To:* s..s@a2c2.us > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:05 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Save Cannabis] What the hell is going on in LA? > > It is we who should reconsider what it means to resist any and all efforts > to regulate dispensaries in L.A. — or anywhere else for that matter. > Taking a “catch us if you can” approach does nothing — less than nothing, > really — to establishing a truly legal and level playing field where > dispensaries can claim with a straight face that they’re fully compliant > with state and local laws. > > Speaking of state and local, it is not a question of whether new > regulations are needed at one level or another. We will have new laws and > regulations at both the state and local levels, and L.A. is duty-bound to > use its police powers to bring some sense to the chaos. If you’re invested > in the fed- and/or tax- and/or code-enforcement-dodging way of doing things > now, this argument will fall on deaf ears. But there are plenty of good > operators who pay taxes and try to work within local laws, only to be > punished by unfair competition from “rogue” operators who come and go as > they please. > > This situation is not tenable or sustainable, and the bloated, unregulated > market in L.A. gives rise to a political climate that could shut down each > and every ballot measure designed to fix it. We tend to forget that MMJ > patients are still a distinct minority vote, and that many nominal MMJ > patients may not bother to vote at all, while non-patients and > non-rec-users have no problem kicking us all to the curb. > > I support the creation of lawful, regulated business models to provide > safe and affordable access to patients. I don’t support the quasi-legal > status quo, unregulated “clusters” of dispensaries, free rein and full > employment for underground 99-plant growers, or rejection of efforts to > pass reasonable cannabis regulations at both the state and local level. If > we can’t even support better regs, having a vested interest as patients, > why should voters and/or lawmakers who have zero interest in cannabis other > than keeping it out of their personal and professional spaces? > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Starchild <s..r@earthlink.net>wrote: > > If the facts below are correct, then the members of this coalition > in L.A. — the Greater Los Angeles Caregivers Alliance, Americans for Safe > Access, and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union — are acting > counter to the interests of the marijuana community and should be pressured > to reconsider. > > The “facts on the ground” are on our side — hundreds of > dispensaries in L.A. remain open and doing business. It is doubtful that > the Feds have the resources to go after and shut down all of them, > especially if they can fairly readily reopen in new locations. So any > measure that would change this status quo by getting the city government > involved in further limiting, regulating, or taxing these dispensaries, is > bad news and should be resisted. > > More dispensaries means more reliable jobs (to the extent > dispensaries are restricted, these jobs will still exist in one form or > other in the black market, but will not be as safe or reliable), more > competition, lower prices, and better access for marijuana users. > > Love & Liberty, > ((( starchild ))) > > > On Jan 29, 2013, at 11:19 PM, Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur wrote: > > > So….ASA backed more restriction, weren’t those moonbat actvist writing > something about this … > > > >> On Tuesday, January 29, 2013, Weed Activist <w..t@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > What the hell is going on in LA? > >> > > >> > Source: > http://weedactivist.com/2013/01/29/what-the-hell-is-going-on-in-la/ > >> > > >> > Talk about strange. Medical cannabis in Los Angeles has been a > controversial issue…well…since forever. But the current situation has > taken on a life of its own, as the “every man for themselves” mentality has > taken over, and individuals, organizations, legal teams, unions, groups of > organizations, and of course, the City, have decided to enter Thunderdome. > >> > > >> > I read this article today in the LA Times entitled Proponents of LA > Medical Marijuana Ballot Measure Shift Support. In the article it explains > how there will now be no less that THREE medical cannabis regulatory > initiatives going before the voters in May. Does that sound confusing > enough? Well, add in that now the Americans for Safe Access/GLACA/UFCW > group has pulled support for THEIR OWN proposal in favor of a similar > proposal with a HIGHER tax rate that is being put on the ballot by the > City, and what you have is virtual chaos. > >> > > >> > Let me see if I can provide a little background. Medical cannabis > began to really flourish in Los Angeles in 2006-2007 after the Raich > decision. In August of 2007, the City passed an Interim Control Ordinance > (ICO) that established a moratorium on new dispensaries. This ICO contained > a hardship clause that allowed for collectives that were affected by > Federal interference letters to move to a different location. Well, the > devil is in the details, and the way the hardship clause was written it > actually allowed for any collective, regardless of if they filed as a > Pre-ICO collective, to register under this clause. By the end of 2008, it > was estimated there were between 500-1000 dispensaries in Los Angeles, and > the majority had registered with the City under this hardship clause. > >> > > >> > Are you still with me? To make a long story short, the ICO was ruled > illegal and has since had its sunset clause go into effect, meaning it is > in no way law, and was illegal to begin with. So now there is this > imaginary line in the sand and a list of these 183 collectives that > registered under the ICO that have been supposedly operating since > pre-August 2007. Many of these collectives are either not open any longer, > or have changed ownership several times over the past few years. Very few > are operated by the folks who registered them. There are also several > hundred other dispensing collectives who opened either in the hardship > period, or while the legal status of collectives remained in flux. Many of > these groups have been open for several years and do a good job of > providing medicine to their patients. They employ people and also > contribute greatly to the communities they serve. The reality is that they > are not any more, or less, “legal” than the pre-ICO collectives. > >> > > >> > Fast forward to now, and what seems like a million legal twists and > turns later. Earlier in the year a coalition of the Greater Los Angeles > Caregivers Alliance, Americans for Safe Access, and the United Food and > Commercial Workers Union gathered signatures to put an initiative on the > ballot in May that would only allow for pre-ICO collectives to exist, and > would restrict their locations in addition to adding a supplemental tax. It > would essentially close all dispensaries that were not open before August > of 2007, and who did not register with the City under their illegal > ordinance. While I do not agree with the premise of the proposal, it is > clear that the group is working to appease local officials and put forth an > effort that protects the interests of these organizations. It is not what I > would do, but I understand the strategy behind it. > >> > > >> > Meanwhile, the group of dispensaries that were not registered under > the ICO, but who have been operating for some time, gathered the necessary > signatures to put their own initiative on the ballot. This initiative is > more of what I would look to as an activist and patient who desired a more > competitive and robust local industry. It limisd the dispensaries based on > location and certain requirements, but also allowed for new dispensaries to > apply and for ALL dispensaries to have the right to exist if they met the > requirements. From a person who supports more access to less expensive > medicine in a more competitive environment, I see this proposal as a good > option. It also does not give credence to what was an Interim Control > Ordinance that was ill-conceived and which caused ultimate chaos in LA, in > California, and for medical cannabis across the nation. Why we would reward > that bad behavior is beyond me. > >> > > >> > So there are the TWO measures that were set to compete for the LA > vote in May. Which would have made for an interesting battle in > itself….BUT enter the defunct and corrupt City government to also throw > their hat in the ring and propose an initiative of their own. Yes. You > heard that right….THREE initiatives to regulate medical cannabis. How > does the City plan on making their initiative palatable to the Union > supporting the first initiative who has a lot of pull at City Hall, and get > more votes than the other two initiatives? They regulate down to the > pre-ICO group but add a HIGHER TAX RATE to get the voters to buy in. > Everyone wants to tax the weedhead, ya’ know? > >> > > >> > But now, in a move I can only describe as “unbelievable” the > UFCW/ASA/GLACA coalition has decided to drop support for their own proposal > and support the proposal being put forth by the City. which is the MOST > RESTRICTIVE and MOST EXPENSIVE option on the table. Did I miss something? > >> > > >> > When I began this journey as a weed activist, I certainly believed > the goal was to get cannabis to the most people who needed it at the best > value in a clean and safe environment. To me, I just do not get this move > and do not understand the logic behind this decision. Maybe I do not have > all of the facts, but from an outsider looking in it would seem that more > access points for more people would create better value and better service > options for patients. > >> > > >> > Here is Americans for Safe Access’ own Talking Points on Medical > Cannabis Dispensary Regulations regarding this: > >> > > >> > Limiting Medical Cannabis Dispensing Collectives is a Bad Idea: > >> > > >> > It is not necessary for policymakers to set arbitrary limitations on > the number of dispensing collectives allowed to operate. Obviously, > collectives who provide quality care and patient services to their > membership will flourish whereas those that provide little or no service > will fail. > >> > Capping the number of medical dispensaries limits consumer choice, > which results in both decreasing quality of care and affordability issues. > >> > Limiting the number of dispensing collectives allowed to operate may > place additional burdens on patients with limited mobility. It is crucial > that collectives be readily accessible to patients throughout and across > the county. > >> > > >> > So by their own admission, on their own website, the effort they are > putting forth is a BAD IDEA. Super. > >> > > >> > Regardless of where you fall on either side of this debate, LET THE > GAMES BEGIN! It is going to be a hotly contested issue come April and may > in LA, and it would bode well for people to do their homework and figure > out what is happening. Do not be pushed into group think. Look deep in your > heart, examine the options, facts, and motivations of all of the positions, > and make a more informed decision on which effort and who you support in > what is sure to be an epic weed war in LA this spring. > >> > > >> > I am literally dumbfounded, myself, and cannot for the life of me > figure out which way is up in this movement anymore. What is for sure is > that it is entertaining regardless and will likely be one for the ages. I > love you LA, but damn…. > > — > — >

What the hell is going on in LA?

I agree with Mickey, bud your spin on this, isn’t even what being written about, let’s focus our conversant , on the points before us. I On Jan 31, 2013 6:14 PM, “Weed Activist” <w..t@gmail.com> wrote: > But Bud…NO ONE is talking about “unregulated “clusters” of > dispensaries.” > > We are talking about three options on the table…. > > 1. Initiative put up by ASA/GLACA.UFCW that limits the dispensaries to > about 100 based on the “pre-ICO” ILLEGAL moratorium put in place by the > City in 2007, which most collectives listed either do not exist or have new > management. It leaves the taxes at 5% > > 2. Initiative put up by “post-ICO” collectives that allows for a more > level playing field and DOES REGULATE dispensaries. It allows for > dispensaries, many who have also been in business since 2007-2008, to stay > open if they meet zoning and regulatory compliance. It raises the tax rate > to 6% > > 3. The City sponsored initiative that limits the collectives to the > Pre-ICO levels of about 100, AND raises the tax rate to 6% > > So if you are following, option one- limited access/lower taxes….option > 2- expanded access/higher taxes……option 3- limited access/higher taxes. > > So it begs to wonder why ASA/GLACA/UFCW are backing the option with the > least access and the highest taxes. > > And ACTUALLY…..exit polling done after the election in June shows very > good numbers of people supporting these measure. It would seem with a > robust educational campaign, and a consolidated effort between the pre-ICO > and post-ICO groups with one larger warchest CAMPAIGNING to promote the > most access, and making the case for dispensaries instead of feeding into > the negative dialogue put forth by a few neighborhood council folks, would > be the best thing for ALL patients and providers. > > Here are those polling numbers for you to review: > http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/12/medical_marijuana_supported_los_angeles_voters_initiatives.php > > So the assertion to blindly follow because you think there is a > “resistance” of some sort is absurd. I spoke briefly with Yami from GLACA > yesterday, and her position was that she did not think the other option > would pass the voters. Well if it does not, and the City plan wins at the > ballot box anyways, then we would be in the same place they are advocating > for now, correct? Then why not advocate for the least restrictive option, > and if we end up with the most restrictive option, well…that is > democracy. But to roll over and assume defeat going in is ill-conceived > strategy IMO. > > And from where a lot of people are sitting it seems like a cock-block…. > > Interested to hear how you see it differently…… > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Bud <c..s@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It is we who should reconsider what it means to resist any and all >> efforts to regulate dispensaries in L.A. — or anywhere else for that >> matter. Taking a “catch us if you can” approach does nothing — less than >> nothing, really — to establishing a truly legal and level playing field >> where dispensaries can claim with a straight face that they’re fully >> compliant with state and local laws. >> >> Speaking of state and local, it is not a question of whether new >> regulations are needed at one level or another. We will have new laws and >> regulations at both the state and local levels, and L.A. is duty-bound to >> use its police powers to bring some sense to the chaos. If you’re invested >> in the fed- and/or tax- and/or code-enforcement-dodging way of doing things >> now, this argument will fall on deaf ears. But there are plenty of good >> operators who pay taxes and try to work within local laws, only to be >> punished by unfair competition from “rogue” operators who come and go as >> they please. >> >> This situation is not tenable or sustainable, and the bloated, >> unregulated market in L.A. gives rise to a political climate that could >> shut down each and every ballot measure designed to fix it. We tend to >> forget that MMJ patients are still a distinct minority vote, and that many >> nominal MMJ patients may not bother to vote at all, while non-patients and >> non-rec-users have no problem kicking us all to the curb. >> >> I support the creation of lawful, regulated business models to provide >> safe and affordable access to patients. I don’t support the quasi-legal >> status quo, unregulated “clusters” of dispensaries, free rein and full >> employment for underground 99-plant growers, or rejection of efforts to >> pass reasonable cannabis regulations at both the state and local level. If >> we can’t even support better regs, having a vested interest as patients, >> why should voters and/or lawmakers who have zero interest in cannabis other >> than keeping it out of their personal and professional spaces? >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Starchild <s..r@earthlink.net>wrote: >> >>> If the facts below are correct, then the members of this >>> coalition in L.A. — the Greater Los Angeles Caregivers Alliance, Americans >>> for Safe Access, and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union — are >>> acting counter to the interests of the marijuana community and should be >>> pressured to reconsider. >>> >>> The “facts on the ground” are on our side — hundreds of >>> dispensaries in L.A. remain open and doing business. It is doubtful that >>> the Feds have the resources to go after and shut down all of them, >>> especially if they can fairly readily reopen in new locations. So any >>> measure that would change this status quo by getting the city government >>> involved in further limiting, regulating, or taxing these dispensaries, is >>> bad news and should be resisted. >>> >>> More dispensaries means more reliable jobs (to the extent >>> dispensaries are restricted, these jobs will still exist in one form or >>> other in the black market, but will not be as safe or reliable), more >>> competition, lower prices, and better access for marijuana users. >>> >>> Love & Liberty, >>> ((( starchild ))) >>> >>> >>> On Jan 29, 2013, at 11:19 PM, Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur wrote: >>> >>> > So….ASA backed more restriction, weren’t those moonbat actvist >>> writing something about this … >>> > >>> >> On Tuesday, January 29, 2013, Weed Activist <w..t@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > What the hell is going on in LA? >>> >> > >>> >> > Source: >>> http://weedactivist.com/2013/01/29/what-the-hell-is-going-on-in-la/ >>> >> > >>> >> > Talk about strange. Medical cannabis in Los Angeles has been a >>> controversial issue…well…since forever. But the current situation has >>> taken on a life of its own, as the “every man for themselves” mentality has >>> taken over, and individuals, organizations, legal teams, unions, groups of >>> organizations, and of course, the City, have decided to enter Thunderdome. >>> >> > >>> >> > I read this article today in the LA Times entitled Proponents of LA >>> Medical Marijuana Ballot Measure Shift Support. In the article it explains >>> how there will now be no less that THREE medical cannabis regulatory >>> initiatives going before the voters in May. Does that sound confusing >>> enough? Well, add in that now the Americans for Safe Access/GLACA/UFCW >>> group has pulled support for THEIR OWN proposal in favor of a similar >>> proposal with a HIGHER tax rate that is being put on the ballot by the >>> City, and what you have is virtual chaos. >>> >> > >>> >> > Let me see if I can provide a little background. Medical cannabis >>> began to really flourish in Los Angeles in 2006-2007 after the Raich >>> decision. In August of 2007, the City passed an Interim Control Ordinance >>> (ICO) that established a moratorium on new dispensaries. This ICO contained >>> a hardship clause that allowed for collectives that were affected by >>> Federal interference letters to move to a different location. Well, the >>> devil is in the details, and the way the hardship clause was written it >>> actually allowed for any collective, regardless of if they filed as a >>> Pre-ICO collective, to register under this clause. By the end of 2008, it >>> was estimated there were between 500-1000 dispensaries in Los Angeles, and >>> the majority had registered with the City under this hardship clause. >>> >> > >>> >> > Are you still with me? To make a long story short, the ICO was >>> ruled illegal and has since had its sunset clause go into effect, meaning >>> it is in no way law, and was illegal to begin with. So now there is this >>> imaginary line in the sand and a list of these 183 collectives that >>> registered under the ICO that have been supposedly operating since >>> pre-August 2007. Many of these collectives are either not open any longer, >>> or have changed ownership several times over the past few years. Very few >>> are operated by the folks who registered them. There are also several >>> hundred other dispensing collectives who opened either in the hardship >>> period, or while the legal status of collectives remained in flux. Many of >>> these groups have been open for several years and do a good job of >>> providing medicine to their patients. They employ people and also >>> contribute greatly to the communities they serve. The reality is that they >>> are not any more, or less, “legal” than the pre-ICO collectives. >>> >> > >>> >> > Fast forward to now, and what seems like a million legal twists and >>> turns later. Earlier in the year a coalition of the Greater Los Angeles >>> Caregivers Alliance, Americans for Safe Access, and the United Food and >>> Commercial Workers Union gathered signatures to put an initiative on the >>> ballot in May that would only allow for pre-ICO collectives to exist, and >>> would restrict their locations in addition to adding a supplemental tax. It >>> would essentially close all dispensaries that were not open before August >>> of 2007, and who did not register with the City under their illegal >>> ordinance. While I do not agree with the premise of the proposal, it is >>> clear that the group is working to appease local officials and put forth an >>> effort that protects the interests of these organizations. It is not what I >>> would do, but I understand the strategy behind it. >>> >> > >>> >> > Meanwhile, the group of dispensaries that were not registered under >>> the ICO, but who have been operating for some time, gathered the necessary >>> signatures to put their own initiative on the ballot. This initiative is >>> more of what I would look to as an activist and patient who desired a more >>> competitive and robust local industry. It limisd the dispensaries based on >>> location and certain requirements, but also allowed for new dispensaries to >>> apply and for ALL dispensaries to have the right to exist if they met the >>> requirements. From a person who supports more access to less expensive >>> medicine in a more competitive environment, I see this proposal as a good >>> option. It also does not give credence to what was an Interim Control >>> Ordinance that was ill-conceived and which caused ultimate chaos in LA, in >>> California, and for medical cannabis across the nation. Why we would reward >>> that bad behavior is beyond me. >>> >> > >>> >> > So there are the TWO measures that were set to compete for the LA >>> vote in May. Which would have made for an interesting battle in >>> itself….BUT enter the defunct and corrupt City government to also throw >>> their hat in the ring and propose an initiative of their own. Yes. You >>> heard that right….THREE initiatives to regulate medical cannabis. How >>> does the City plan on making their initiative palatable to the Union >>> supporting the first initiative who has a lot of pull at City Hall, and get >>> more votes than the other two initiatives? They regulate down to the >>> pre-ICO group but add a HIGHER TAX RATE to get the voters to buy in. >>> Everyone wants to tax the weedhead, ya’ know? >>> >> > >>> >> > But now, in a move I can only describe as “unbelievable” the >>> UFCW/ASA/GLACA coalition has decided to drop support for their own proposal >>> and support the proposal being put forth by the City. which is the MOST >>> RESTRICTIVE and MOST EXPENSIVE option on the table. Did I miss something? >>> >> > >>> >> > When I began this journey as a weed activist, I certainly believed >>> the goal was to get cannabis to the most people who needed it at the best >>> value in a clean and safe environment. To me, I just do not get this move >>> and do not understand the logic behind this decision. Maybe I do not have >>> all of the facts, but from an outsider looking in it would seem that more >>> access points for more people would create better value and better service >>> options for patients. >>> >> > >>> >> > Here is Americans for Safe Access’ own Talking Points on Medical >>> Cannabis Dispensary Regulations regarding this: >>> >> > >>> >> > Limiting Medical Cannabis Dispensing Collectives is a Bad Idea: >>> >> > >>> >> > It is not necessary for policymakers to set arbitrary limitations >>> on the number of dispensing collectives allowed to operate. Obviously, >>> collectives who provide quality care and patient services to their >>> membership will flourish whereas those that provide little or no service >>> will fail. >>> >> > Capping the number of medical dispensaries limits consumer choice, >>> which results in both decreasing quality of care and affordability issues. >>> >> > Limiting the number of dispensing collectives allowed to operate >>> may place additional burdens on patients with limited mobility. It is >>> crucial that collectives be readily accessible to patients throughout and >>> across the county. >>> >> > >>> >> > So by their own admission, on their own website, the effort they >>> are putting forth is a BAD IDEA. Super. >>> >> > >>> >> > Regardless of where you fall on either side of this debate, LET THE >>> GAMES BEGIN! It is going to be a hotly contested issue come April and may >>> in LA, and it would bode well for people to do their homework and figure >>> out what is happening. Do not be pushed into group think. Look deep in your >>> heart, examine the options, facts, and motivations of all of the positions, >>> and make a more informed decision on which effort and who you support in >>> what is sure to be an epic weed war in LA this spring. >>> >> > >>> >> > I am literally dumbfounded, myself, and cannot for the life of me >>> figure out which way is up in this movement anymore. What is for sure is >>> that it is entertaining regardless and will likely be one for the ages. I >>> love you LA, but damn…. >>> >>> — >>> — >>>

Preserving freedom on the ground in L.A.

Bud, Please see my responses interspersed with your comments below… On Jan 30, 2013, at 11:05 PM, Bud wrote: > It is we who should reconsider what it means to resist any and all efforts to regulate dispensaries in L.A. — or anywhere else for that matter. Taking a “catch us if you can” approach does nothing — less than nothing, really — to establishing a truly legal and level playing field where dispensaries can claim with a straight face that they’re fully compliant with state and local laws. Actually the “facts on the ground” often do a LOT to establish what the legal playing field ends up looking like. Perhaps you have heard the saying, “Possession is 9/10ths of the law”? > Speaking of state and local, it is not a question of whether new regulations are needed at one level or another. Perhaps you are already of the opinion that more new regulations *are* needed, and would prefer not to have that assumption questioned. But some of us are adamantly opposed to new regulations that make the situation on the ground worse than it is now. So for the community as a whole, it is a question, even if some of us on both side have already made up our minds. Like you, I would prefer that it not be a question, but for the opposite reason as yourself — to me, it is a no-brainer that we do NOT want more regulations. > We will have new laws and regulations at both the state and local levels, and L.A. is duty-bound to use its police powers to bring some sense to the chaos. “Vee must haf law und order!” Uh, no. Marijuana activists are morally obligated to use our activist powers to bring some freedom to the tyranny! “Chaos” is a subjective term. Those who claim a situation needs to be reformed because it is “chaotic” need to show that there is actual harm and how more regulations will guarantee that harm is reduced. Simply crying “chaos” is not enough. Some people have a psychological desire to have everything be cookie-cutter neat and predictable, but that desire is not shared by everyone. > If you’re invested in the fed- and/or tax- and/or code-enforcement-dodging way of doing things now, this argument will fall on deaf ears. But there are plenty of good operators who pay taxes and try to work within local laws, only to be punished by unfair competition from “rogue” operators who come and go as they please. Here’s another way to say that: “There are plenty of good operators who do not feed the system by paying taxes and try or obeying unjust laws, only to be punished by unfair competition from ‘servile’ operators whose willingness to bow to the demands of local government bosses allows them to sell with much less risk.” Now I don’t think that characterization is fair to those who try to do business visibly, since both visibility and non-compliance are useful to the movement in different ways, but it is no more unfair than your characterization of those who try to preserve their freedom (and incidentally ours) by ignoring bad and unconstitutional statutes. > This situation is not tenable or sustainable, and the bloated, unregulated market in L.A. gives rise to a political climate that could shut down each and every ballot measure designed to fix it. Fears that the large, free, competitive cannabis market in L.A. have given rise to a political climate that can shut down attempts to wreck it, suggests that the situation is more tenable and sustainable than drug warriors and would-be regulators want to admit. > We tend to forget that MMJ patients are still a distinct minority vote, and that many nominal MMJ patients may not bother to vote at all, while non-patients and non-rec-users have no problem kicking us all to the curb. Sounds like an argument for trying to keep measures to “fix” the situation off the ballot. > I support the creation of lawful, regulated business models to provide safe and affordable access to patients. I don’t support the quasi-legal status quo, unregulated “clusters” of dispensaries, free rein and full employment for underground 99-plant growers, or rejection of efforts to pass reasonable cannabis regulations at both the state and local level. If we can’t even support better regs, having a vested interest as patients, why should voters and/or lawmakers who have zero interest in cannabis other than keeping it out of their personal and professional spaces? I hear you saying you don’t support freedom, and would rather have government control. Because, I suppose, government has shown what a wonderful job it does regulating cannabis. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Starchild <s..r@earthlink.net> wrote: > > If the facts below are correct, then the members of this coalition in L.A. — the Greater Los Angeles Caregivers Alliance, Americans for Safe Access, and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union — are acting counter to the interests of the marijuana community and should be pressured to reconsider. > > The “facts on the ground” are on our side — hundreds of dispensaries in L.A. remain open and doing business. It is doubtful that the Feds have the resources to go after and shut down all of them, especially if they can fairly readily reopen in new locations. So any measure that would change this status quo by getting the city government involved in further limiting, regulating, or taxing these dispensaries, is bad news and should be resisted. > > More dispensaries means more reliable jobs (to the extent dispensaries are restricted, these jobs will still exist in one form or other in the black market, but will not be as safe or reliable), more competition, lower prices, and better access for marijuana users. > > Love & Liberty, > ((( starchild ))) > > > On Jan 29, 2013, at 11:19 PM, Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur wrote: >> >> > So….ASA backed more restriction, weren’t those moonbat actvist writing something about this … >> > >> >> On Tuesday, January 29, 2013, Weed Activist <w..t@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > What the hell is going on in LA? >> >> > >> >> > Source: http://weedactivist.com/2013/01/29/what-the-hell-is-going-on-in-la/ >> >> > >> >> > Talk about strange. Medical cannabis in Los Angeles has been a controversial issue…well…since forever. But the current situation has taken on a life of its own, as the “every man for themselves” mentality has taken over, and individuals, organizations, legal teams, unions, groups of organizations, and of course, the City, have decided to enter Thunderdome. >> >> > >> >> > I read this article today in the LA Times entitled Proponents of LA Medical Marijuana Ballot Measure Shift Support. In the article it explains how there will now be no less that THREE medical cannabis regulatory initiatives going before the voters in May. Does that sound confusing enough? Well, add in that now the Americans for Safe Access/GLACA/UFCW group has pulled support for THEIR OWN proposal in favor of a similar proposal with a HIGHER tax rate that is being put on the ballot by the City, and what you have is virtual chaos. >> >> > >> >> > Let me see if I can provide a little background. Medical cannabis began to really flourish in Los Angeles in 2006-2007 after the Raich decision. In August of 2007, the City passed an Interim Control Ordinance (ICO) that established a moratorium on new dispensaries. This ICO contained a hardship clause that allowed for collectives that were affected by Federal interference letters to move to a different location. Well, the devil is in the details, and the way the hardship clause was written it actually allowed for any collective, regardless of if they filed as a Pre-ICO collective, to register under this clause. By the end of 2008, it was estimated there were between 500-1000 dispensaries in Los Angeles, and the majority had registered with the City under this hardship clause. >> >> > >> >> > Are you still with me? To make a long story short, the ICO was ruled illegal and has since had its sunset clause go into effect, meaning it is in no way law, and was illegal to begin with. So now there is this imaginary line in the sand and a list of these 183 collectives that registered under the ICO that have been supposedly operating since pre-August 2007. Many of these collectives are either not open any longer, or have changed ownership several times over the past few years. Very few are operated by the folks who registered them. There are also several hundred other dispensing collectives who opened either in the hardship period, or while the legal status of collectives remained in flux. Many of these groups have been open for several years and do a good job of providing medicine to their patients. They employ people and also contribute greatly to the communities they serve. The reality is that they are not any more, or less, “legal” than the pre-ICO collectives. >> >> > >> >> > Fast forward to now, and what seems like a million legal twists and turns later. Earlier in the year a coalition of the Greater Los Angeles Caregivers Alliance, Americans for Safe Access, and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union gathered signatures to put an initiative on the ballot in May that would only allow for pre-ICO collectives to exist, and would restrict their locations in addition to adding a supplemental tax. It would essentially close all dispensaries that were not open before August of 2007, and who did not register with the City under their illegal ordinance. While I do not agree with the premise of the proposal, it is clear that the group is working to appease local officials and put forth an effort that protects the interests of these organizations. It is not what I would do, but I understand the strategy behind it. >> >> > >> >> > Meanwhile, the group of dispensaries that were not registered under the ICO, but who have been operating for some time, gathered the necessary signatures to put their own initiative on the ballot. This initiative is more of what I would look to as an activist and patient who desired a more competitive and robust local industry. It limisd the dispensaries based on location and certain requirements, but also allowed for new dispensaries to apply and for ALL dispensaries to have the right to exist if they met the requirements. From a person who supports more access to less expensive medicine in a more competitive environment, I see this proposal as a good option. It also does not give credence to what was an Interim Control Ordinance that was ill-conceived and which caused ultimate chaos in LA, in California, and for medical cannabis across the nation. Why we would reward that bad behavior is beyond me. >> >> > >> >> > So there are the TWO measures that were set to compete for the LA vote in May. Which would have made for an interesting battle in itself….BUT enter the defunct and corrupt City government to also throw their hat in the ring and propose an initiative of their own. Yes. You heard that right….THREE initiatives to regulate medical cannabis. How does the City plan on making their initiative palatable to the Union supporting the first initiative who has a lot of pull at City Hall, and get more votes than the other two initiatives? They regulate down to the pre-ICO group but add a HIGHER TAX RATE to get the voters to buy in. Everyone wants to tax the weedhead, ya’ know? >> >> > >> >> > But now, in a move I can only describe as “unbelievable” the UFCW/ASA/GLACA coalition has decided to drop support for their own proposal and support the proposal being put forth by the City. which is the MOST RESTRICTIVE and MOST EXPENSIVE option on the table. Did I miss something? >> >> > >> >> > When I began this journey as a weed activist, I certainly believed the goal was to get cannabis to the most people who needed it at the best value in a clean and safe environment. To me, I just do not get this move and do not understand the logic behind this decision. Maybe I do not have all of the facts, but from an outsider looking in it would seem that more access points for more people would create better value and better service options for patients. >> >> > >> >> > Here is Americans for Safe Access’ own Talking Points on Medical Cannabis Dispensary Regulations regarding this: >> >> > >> >> > Limiting Medical Cannabis Dispensing Collectives is a Bad Idea: >> >> > >> >> > It is not necessary for policymakers to set arbitrary limitations on the number of dispensing collectives allowed to operate. Obviously, collectives who provide quality care and patient services to their membership will flourish whereas those that provide little or no service will fail. >> >> > Capping the number of medical dispensaries limits consumer choice, which results in both decreasing quality of care and affordability issues. >> >> > Limiting the number of dispensing collectives allowed to operate may place additional burdens on patients with limited mobility. It is crucial that collectives be readily accessible to patients throughout and across the county. >> >> > >> >> > So by their own admission, on their own website, the effort they are putting forth is a BAD IDEA. Super. >> >> > >> >> > Regardless of where you fall on either side of this debate, LET THE GAMES BEGIN! It is going to be a hotly contested issue come April and may in LA, and it would bode well for people to do their homework and figure out what is happening. Do not be pushed into group think. Look deep in your heart, examine the options, facts, and motivations of all of the positions, and make a more informed decision on which effort and who you support in what is sure to be an epic weed war in LA this spring. >> >> > >> >> > I am literally dumbfounded, myself, and cannot for the life of me figure out which way is up in this movement anymore. What is for sure is that it is entertaining regardless and will likely be one for the ages. I love you LA, but damn…. — —

HEMPROCK RADIO TODAY

HEMPROCK RADIO TODAY…ASA D.E.A. LAWSUIT PLAINTIFF/PATIENT MICHAEL KRAWITZ & KENTUCKY HEMP COALITION’S, KATIE MOYER! Today 4-6 pm Est on Cincy’s 95.7 FM and http://www.mediabridges.org/hemprock-radio/ And NOW on all Android and Smart phones. Get the ‘Tune In’ App at http://tunein.com/radio/WVQC-LP-957-s127383/ PLEASE SHARE! — Thanx & have a Hempy Day! Lynne Wilson, Founder/Dir. ‘Happy Hemptress’ HempRock Prods. 513-GROW-BUD cell, HempRock Hempline 513-68-4-HEMP www.hemprock.com, www.weedradionetwork.com, www.cincinnatimarijuanalaw.com HempRock Radio Mon 4-5p & Thurs 4-6p Est, WVQC-LP Radio Free Queen City Cincy 95.7 FM, www.wvqc.org, Phone App at www.tunein.com Radio Advisory Panel Member & WVQC Member of the Year 2012 HempRock TV is on NKY Insite & Cincy’s Media Bridges Public Access & www.youtube.com/potsmoker840 Chuck ‘Burnman’ Byrnes B. I. P. Burn In Peace Willie Nelson’s TeaPot Party – Cincinnati/Northern KY Chapter Gatewood Galbraith R. I. P. “Happy is he who dares courageously to defend what he loves.” Roman Poet Publius Ovidius Naso (43 BC – 17 or 18 AD), AKA Ovid. — —

What the hell is going on in LA?

If this is a business, then I say if you want a union, that’s your right. But there is no non profit unions to my knowledge. Union workers have to pay monthly dues, that cost is pushed on the patients again increasing the cost of medication “they” need. Dan Rush was damn clear about that, and also letting us know prop 215 was the one thing in his way in achieving union control, again who asked them in? Teflon Don when he tried to push AB-2312 on us. This people is our own back yard “Drug War” we face. You gave them this unannounced authority just because they write saying They are the largest this and that crap, and so many bought into it, it’s still not to late to take your power back, remember without you they can’t exist! We need to reorganize and this time do it right. Patients is the reason this compassionate law was passed, let’s try to keep them as the focus point and restructure our rights to embrace competition, It can be done and keeping prop 215 and SB-420, The California Medical Marijuana Constitution! It is the only protection we have and thank goodness the creators had this type of futuristic view of what we would soon see emerge from weed-greed. Each city needs a patient rep or two to speak for their problems and work towards an agreeable alternative to co-exist. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur < a..f@gmail.com> wrote: > I couldn’t agree with statchild more, regarding patients access, > affordable access, prices in LA are already to high! I believe this info is > indeed factual and utterly disappointing, and what Mickey pointed to a > Either a change in policy with the talking points he posted,.or a pretext > in being based in service first and foremost to strengthen patients access > versus limit, and the taxes will be paid by us, therefore abandon the quest > for affordable medicine, sometimes I honestly wonder about the poverty > pimping that happens when disability checks go to pay tax? > S > So my point to ASA has always been, get in where you fit in kids, I would > have allot more respect, if they simply would state, were a goverment > relations firm for the following clubs, then keep seating and Billing > themselves as the largest Patient advocacy group!! Bullshit, utter ducking > horse hockey! > My second questioning, and to be clear I adore me. Rush , but what union > supports people loosing their jobs? I’d like a factual impact report on how > many club employee are loosing good jobs with healthcare ? In this really > bizarrely support effort by a union? > On Jan 30, 2013 5:12 PM, “Starchild” <s..r@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> If the facts below are correct, then the members of this >> coalition in L.A. — the Greater Los Angeles Caregivers Alliance, Americans >> for Safe Access, and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union — are >> acting counter to the interests of the marijuana community and should be >> pressured to reconsider. >> >> The “facts on the ground” are on our side — hundreds of >> dispensaries in L.A. remain open and doing business. It is doubtful that >> the Feds have the resources to go after and shut down all of them, >> especially if they can fairly readily reopen in new locations. So any >> measure that would change this status quo by getting the city government >> involved in further limiting, regulating, or taxing these dispensaries, is >> bad news and should be resisted. >> >> More dispensaries means more reliable jobs (to the extent >> dispensaries are restricted, these jobs will still exist in one form or >> other in the black market, but will not be as safe or reliable), more >> competition, lower prices, and better access for marijuana users. >> >> Love & Liberty, >> ((( starchild ))) >> >> >> On Jan 29, 2013, at 11:19 PM, Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur wrote: >> >> > So….ASA backed more restriction, weren’t those moonbat actvist >> writing something about this … >> > >> >> On Tuesday, January 29, 2013, Weed Activist <w..t@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > What the hell is going on in LA? >> >> > >> >> > Source: >> http://weedactivist.com/2013/01/29/what-the-hell-is-going-on-in-la/ >> >> > >> >> > Talk about strange. Medical cannabis in Los Angeles has been a >> controversial issue…well…since forever. But the current situation has >> taken on a life of its own, as the “every man for themselves” mentality has >> taken over, and individuals, organizations, legal teams, unions, groups of >> organizations, and of course, the City, have decided to enter Thunderdome. >> >> > >> >> > I read this article today in the LA Times entitled Proponents of LA >> Medical Marijuana Ballot Measure Shift Support. In the article it explains >> how there will now be no less that THREE medical cannabis regulatory >> initiatives going before the voters in May. Does that sound confusing >> enough? Well, add in that now the Americans for Safe Access/GLACA/UFCW >> group has pulled support for THEIR OWN proposal in favor of a similar >> proposal with a HIGHER tax rate that is being put on the ballot by the >> City, and what you have is virtual chaos. >> >> > >> >> > Let me see if I can provide a little background. Medical cannabis >> began to really flourish in Los Angeles in 2006-2007 after the Raich >> decision. In August of 2007, the City passed an Interim Control Ordinance >> (ICO) that established a moratorium on new dispensaries. This ICO contained >> a hardship clause that allowed for collectives that were affected by >> Federal interference letters to move to a different location. Well, the >> devil is in the details, and the way the hardship clause was written it >> actually allowed for any collective, regardless of if they filed as a >> Pre-ICO collective, to register under this clause. By the end of 2008, it >> was estimated there were between 500-1000 dispensaries in Los Angeles, and >> the majority had registered with the City under this hardship clause. >> >> > >> >> > Are you still with me? To make a long story short, the ICO was ruled >> illegal and has since had its sunset clause go into effect, meaning it is >> in no way law, and was illegal to begin with. So now there is this >> imaginary line in the sand and a list of these 183 collectives that >> registered under the ICO that have been supposedly operating since >> pre-August 2007. Many of these collectives are either not open any longer, >> or have changed ownership several times over the past few years. Very few >> are operated by the folks who registered them. There are also several >> hundred other dispensing collectives who opened either in the hardship >> period, or while the legal status of collectives remained in flux. Many of >> these groups have been open for several years and do a good job of >> providing medicine to their patients. They employ people and also >> contribute greatly to the communities they serve. The reality is that they >> are not any more, or less, “legal” than the pre-ICO collectives. >> >> > >> >> > Fast forward to now, and what seems like a million legal twists and >> turns later. Earlier in the year a coalition of the Greater Los Angeles >> Caregivers Alliance, Americans for Safe Access, and the United Food and >> Commercial Workers Union gathered signatures to put an initiative on the >> ballot in May that would only allow for pre-ICO collectives to exist, and >> would restrict their locations in addition to adding a supplemental tax. It >> would essentially close all dispensaries that were not open before August >> of 2007, and who did not register with the City under their illegal >> ordinance. While I do not agree with the premise of the proposal, it is >> clear that the group is working to appease local officials and put forth an >> effort that protects the interests of these organizations. It is not what I >> would do, but I understand the strategy behind it. >> >> > >> >> > Meanwhile, the group of dispensaries that were not registered under >> the ICO, but who have been operating for some time, gathered the necessary >> signatures to put their own initiative on the ballot. This initiative is >> more of what I would look to as an activist and patient who desired a more >> competitive and robust local industry. It limisd the dispensaries based on >> location and certain requirements, but also allowed for new dispensaries to >> apply and for ALL dispensaries to have the right to exist if they met the >> requirements. From a person who supports more access to less expensive >> medicine in a more competitive environment, I see this proposal as a good >> option. It also does not give credence to what was an Interim Control >> Ordinance that was ill-conceived and which caused ultimate chaos in LA, in >> California, and for medical cannabis across the nation. Why we would reward >> that bad behavior is beyond me. >> >> > >> >> > So there are the TWO measures that were set to compete for the LA >> vote in May. Which would have made for an interesting battle in >> itself….BUT enter the defunct and corrupt City government to also throw >> their hat in the ring and propose an initiative of their own. Yes. You >> heard that right….THREE initiatives to regulate medical cannabis. How >> does the City plan on making their initiative palatable to the Union >> supporting the first initiative who has a lot of pull at City Hall, and get >> more votes than the other two initiatives? They regulate down to the >> pre-ICO group but add a HIGHER TAX RATE to get the voters to buy in. >> Everyone wants to tax the weedhead, ya’ know? >> >> > >> >> > But now, in a move I can only describe as “unbelievable” the >> UFCW/ASA/GLACA coalition has decided to drop support for their own proposal >> and support the proposal being put forth by the City. which is the MOST >> RESTRICTIVE and MOST EXPENSIVE option on the table. Did I miss something? >> >> > >> >> > When I began this journey as a weed activist, I certainly believed >> the goal was to get cannabis to the most people who needed it at the best >> value in a clean and safe environment. To me, I just do not get this move >> and do not understand the logic behind this decision. Maybe I do not have >> all of the facts, but from an outsider looking in it would seem that more >> access points for more people would create better value and better service >> options for patients. >> >> > >> >> > Here is Americans for Safe Access’ own Talking Points on Medical >> Cannabis Dispensary Regulations regarding this: >> >> > >> >> > Limiting Medical Cannabis Dispensing Collectives is a Bad Idea: >> >> > >> >> > It is not necessary for policymakers to set arbitrary limitations on >> the number of dispensing collectives allowed to operate. Obviously, >> collectives who provide quality care and patient services to their >> membership will flourish whereas those that provide little or no service >> will fail. >> >> > Capping the number of medical dispensaries limits consumer choice, >> which results in both decreasing quality of care and affordability issues. >> >> > Limiting the number of dispensing collectives allowed to operate may >> place additional burdens on patients with limited mobility. It is crucial >> that collectives be readily accessible to patients throughout and across >> the county. >> >> > >> >> > So by their own admission, on their own website, the effort they are >> putting forth is a BAD IDEA. Super. >> >> > >> >> > Regardless of where you fall on either side of this debate, LET THE >> GAMES BEGIN! It is going to be a hotly contested issue come April and may >> in LA, and it would bode well for people to do their homework and figure >> out what is happening. Do not be pushed into group think. Look deep in your >> heart, examine the options, facts, and motivations of all of the positions, >> and make a more informed decision on which effort and who you support in >> what is sure to be an epic weed war in LA this spring. >> >> > >> >> > I am literally dumbfounded, myself, and cannot for the life of me >> figure out which way is up in this movement anymore. What is for sure is >> that it is entertaining regardless and will likely be one for the ages. I >> love you LA, but damn…. >> >> — >> — >>