- AB2312 IS BAD LAW; THE FIGHT FOR TRUE ACCESS HAS BEEN JOINED. [5 Updates]
- marijuana in traffic court [2 Updates]
- DPFCA_NEWS: Joe Grumbine, Now Lawyerless, Refuses Plea Deal in Long Beach Pot Trial [1 Update]
- AB2312 IS A SUCKER PUNCH; 3 YEAR EXEMPTION WAIVER IS A BAIT AND SWITCH – IT IS NOT AUTOMATIC NOR GUARANTEED [1 Update]
- AB2312 IS BAD LAW; GRANTS ANY CITY THE RIGHT TO BAN ANY COLLECTIVE [1 Update]
- AB 2312: We may find out if all use is medical…. [1 Update]
- Patients fight back against the Federal Crackdown with New Technology [2 Updates]
- LA Ban Moves Forward [2 Updates]
- DPFCA_NEWS: Joe Grumbine, Now Lawyerless, Refuses Plea Deal in Long Beach Pot Trial [1 Update]
- AB2312 IS BAD LAW: BANNED FROM THE PACK [1 Update]
- DPFCA: How to Understand the PACK decision… why it will stand. [2 Updates]
- Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance [1 Update]
- PAC bank accounts [1 Update]
- Calif.: Contact your legislators in advance of deadline [1 Update]
- Chris Conrad <s..[email protected]> Jun 02 02:24AM -0700
Allowing 1 dispensary per 50,000 people gives us 750 dispensaries for the
state. That was a minimum number in the last version I considered, not a
maximum. That's not a monopoly, David. A monopoly means one, like the DEA
marijuana monopoly is located at the University of Mississippi in Oxford MI.
"Legalization for all" means you can grow your own and share with friends,
not that if you go into business in California you shouldn't need to get a
business license. Personal freedom and regulated commerce are not
necessarily mutually exclusive.
— Chris <s..[email protected]>(phone#-removed)
- Terry Colorado <s..[email protected]> Jun 02 01:31PM -0700
Monopoly or not; Chris; no city is mandated to allow any number of
dispensaries; and neither is the Medical Marijuana ENFORCEMENT Board.
AB2312 gives City Government and the State Government the absolute right to
BAN dispensaries; … a right that doesn't currently exist; and the State
State Supreme courts review in support of Prop 215 is likely to agree with
that opinion … regardless of the circumstances. … this bill takes ALL
control of medical cannabis away from the citizens of california WHICH PROP
215 wisely gave the people control of; and GIFTS that very control to the
politicians and everything this movement has worked since prohibition in
Anslinger started this bullshit … anyone like that guy? Use this guy as
your motivation and inspiration. Disregard Pro-Tax; Pro-Regs Legislation.
Chris Conrad said:
Allowing 1 dispensary per 50,000 people gives us 750 dispensaries for the
> state. That was a minimum number in the last version I considered, not a
Unfortunately Chris you are mistaken; the TRUE minimum is 0; ANY CITY MAY
BAN ANY COLLECTIVES FROM FORMING WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES; the Medical
Marijuana ENFORCEMENT board ALSO does not even have to allow one
dispensary. IF ONLY ONE dispensary or two is allowed in any city … that
my friend is not a monopoly … that is a OLIGOPOLY
An *oligopoly* is a market form <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_form> in
> influenced by, the decisions of other firms. Strategic planning<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_planning> by
> oligopolists needs to take into account the likely responses of the other
> market participants.
Calling on all Cannabis Warriors; rise up and lead for your cause; now is
the time. The fight has been joined. Stop AB2312.
P.S. Come on Mickey; you know you want to.
The Marijuana Homepage <http://maijuanahomepage.com>
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 7:13 AM, mike boutin <s..[email protected]> wrote:
- Dale Sky Jones <s..[email protected]> Jun 02 10:26AM -0700
Trippet decision says bullshit
Dale Sky Jones
Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform
- Pebbles Trippet <s..[email protected]> Jun 02 01:13PM -0700
You are so right, Dale. At this point, lower courts are making things
Susan Soares had a transportation case in which they said
she had to have a dosage amount to make the recommendation valid.
"Reasonably related", not a dosage amount, is the standard.
This bullshit will last only as long as we fail to resist.
Forcing judges to look at legal paperwork,
including Trippet and ASA against CHP, will get dismissals.
After a few of those, they'll try to invent something else.
If we pay the fines without a peep, it's the equivalent of ignoring 215
and the "reasonably related to our medical condition" standard
and all the subsequent caselaw in our favor, which is what the
prosecutors are doing.
If you lose, what have you lost? Just pay the fine, like you were
going to do in the first place.
Traffic court judges need to hear how the law is on our side. If we
don't stand up for ourselves, who will?
- Terry Colorado <s..[email protected]> Jun 02 02:08AM -0700
I have inserted for you reading pleasure passages from AB2312; proving the
so called 3 year exemption waiver is a BAIT AND SWITCH.
You may have heard that one supposed benefit of AB2312; is that "…
existing dispensaries get 3 year waiver." in fact this so called exemption
may be the sole reason you support AB2312; i'll admit it was the one
WORM-BAIT i briefly entertained.
What? You mean to say that if AB2312 passes; my collective gets a 3 year
reprieve before the Medical Marijuana ENFORCEMENT Board will shut me down?
Hmm … tempting. Well hopefully you didn't spend a long time staring at
that BAITED HOOK. Because all you have to do is read the
following excerpt from AB2312 and it will explain that AB2312 establishes
the mechanism for any city to BAN ANY COLLECTIVE; which is currently
UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and AB2312 DOES NOT TREAT EVERY COLLECTIVE EQUALLY;
FURTHERMORE THE EXEMPTION WAIVER ONLY APPLIES TO REGULATED PERSONS AT A
"… a city or county with existing medical marijuana regulations may
> provide to the board a list of regulated persons that it finds to be in
> good standing under its local medical marijuana regulations"
AB2312 ALSO SAYS:
" "Any person found to not be in good standing by the legislative body of
> a city, county, or city and county pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not
> automatically be deemed a successful mandatory registrant for purposes of
> this article."
TRUE ACCESS Analysis: AB2312 3 YEAR EXEMPTION WAIVER IS ANOTHER RED
HERRING; The exemption only applies to whomever a city says it applies to
and once AB2312 goes into effect "Any person found to not be in good
standing by the legislative body of a city, county, or city and county
pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not "automatically" be deemed a
successful mandatory registrant for purposes of this article. In other
words if your city doesn't put your collective on its list .. you and all
your heart and soul AUTOMAGIKALLY cease to exist; right away … end of
story … unhappily every after. Get it … AB2312 IS A SUCKER PUNCH
(f) (1) A legislative body of a city or county with existing
medical marijuana regulations may provide to the board a list of
regulated persons that it finds to be in good standing under its local
medical marijuana regulations in force as of the effective date of
the act adding this article, which shall be accompanied by a
certified copy of any ordinance regulating the location or operation
of medical marijuana facilities in that jurisdiction. These persons
shall automatically be deemed successful mandatory registrants
for purposes of this article, and shall be exempt from renewal
procedures for three years from the effective date of the act adding
(2) Any person found to not be in good standing by the
legislative body of a city, county, or city and county pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall not automatically be deemed a successful
mandatory registrant for purposes of this article.
(g) If a city or county does not enact a medical marijuana
dispensary zoning ordinance, medical marijuana dispensaries and
facilities in that jurisdiction shall be wholly regulated by the board
pursuant to this article, and medical marijuana dispensaries and
facilities that are mandatory registrants may locate in that
jurisdiction in any location that the board finds to be approp
- Terry Colorado <s..[email protected]> Jun 02 01:11AM -0700
Alright; no one else want to take a jab at this? Okay i will. Sorry i know
i got a big mouth but i can't resist. Y'all are just being way to polite on
the Pro-Tax Warriors.
Bud; you complete me. Please EVERYONE bear witness to exactly the atypical
response from the Pro-reg; Pro-tax side:
You might want to climb on board before the Supreme Court sinks our
This is straight-up PRO-REG scare mongering: what you(Bud) are really
saying is this:
Although AB2312; effectively nullifies almost all rights Prop 215 provides;
which is basically Prop 215 gives us the unquestioned right to
"collectively organize to cultivate and distribute to our members." AND
despite the RECENT fact that the 2nd District Appellate court upheld those
rights with People V Colvin decision AND despite the fact that the State
Supreme Court decided AGAINST reviewing that same decision; People V
You(Bud) advocate supporting passage(GIFTING) of AB2312; although it
essentially GRANTS ANY CITY THE RIGHT TO BAN A COLLECTIVE; real
authorization they do not now have … because you(Bud) are afraid the
Supreme Court is going to bascially FLIP PROP 215 on its ear and uphold a
cities right to BAN COLLECTIVES. Sorry Bud; this is completely illogical;
and i hope everyone can see through the flimsy veil.
In summary: You(Bud) want to just GIFT Local Govt's the right to kill
collectives; instead of letting the Supreme Court decide; DESPITE THE FACT
THAT THE STATE SUPREME COURT DECIDED AGAINST REVIEWING PEOPLE V COLVIN; AND
INSTEAD DECIDED TO REVIEW RIVERSIDE AND LAKE FORREST.
That's what you said BUD .. and their you have it my friends exactly what I
aim to warn you about:
Bud you clearly complete me.
TRUE ACCESS Analysis: The Supreme court decided against reviewing the 2nd
district appellate court decision because they support the People V Colvin
decision; and PROP 215 … the Supreme court wants to review Riverside and
Lake Forrest because BANNING COLLECTIVES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and they are
about to hand our movement the greatest gift we could ask for (high court
legitimacy) … and the PRO-REG; PRO-TAX crowd is asking us .. no …
that's not quite right … begging us … nope that not it either …
DEMANDING us to COVER our eyes, and PISS IT ALL AWAY!!
Stand up! Protect Prop 215; DO NOT SUPPORT AB2312; SUPPORT TRUE ACCESS.
DISREGARD THE PRO-REG; PRO-TAX ARGUMENT.
DID YOU KNOW: Do you realize that AB2312 authorizes a 2.5 state wide tax;
and an additional 5% tax for cities; on top of the BOE tax?
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Bud <s..[email protected]> wrote:
- Mickey Martin <s..[email protected]> Jun 02 08:11AM -0700
We may find out if “all use is medical”
Posted by Mickey Martin on June 2nd, 2012
AB 2312 passed the California Legislative Assembly yesterday with the minimum votes needed, passing 41-28. The bill has a difficult path to passage, as it now goes before the CA State Senate for approval and then on to the Governor. Many are skeptical that it will be able to make it out of the Senate, at least with any resemblance to its current form. But for shits and giggles let us just say that it does pass out of the Senate and gets signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. What then?
My position on AB 2312 has been simple…I am not for more strict regulation of cannabis period. Cannabis is safe and the more we play into the “we need to regulate the shit out of this industry” theory, the more we affirm the drug warriors position that cannabis is not safe….and effective…and even enjoyable. I also understand that the stupid society we live in does not feel as liberally as myself, and I understand that because our current system is a “medical only” system that we are bound by the constraints of what is considered to be appropriate medical operations and controls. In this type of an environment, unfortunately there are much stricter standards and methods of distribution associated with producing, handling, and dispensing of this “very powerful medicinal drug.” We are playing into the “if this is really a medicine then it should be produced, handled, and distributed under the same conditions as pharmaceuticals.”
We have seen this theory play out somwhat in Colorado. Often some rambling idiot will begin preaching about how great the system is in CO. But let us get real. From its peak in 2010, the mandatory registration of medical cannabis patients has dropped by 60%. That is right…6 out of 10 people who were once registered as patients in Colorado have DROPPED OUT of the program. Did everyone get better? Hardly. What has happened there is that people do not see the benefits of the program, and have decided that it is easier to just be an outlaw than to jump through all of the hoops required of patients and providers there. So, essentially, they have driven 60% of cannabis users back to the black market….at least. The Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division there has laid off, or reassigned, the vast MAJORITY of their staff as expected revenues of $5+ million dollars have only resulted in less than $500,000. Yikes. That is about 10% of their expected
revenues. Why? Are less people in weed buying and using cannabis? No. They just are not buying it as part of the regulated system because it is too cumbersome and limiting. So the next time a person declares we must pass regulations to be like Colorado, just remind them that at least 6 in 10 patients there have decided it was easier to be a criminal than to participate in that system.
But back to the hypothetical passing of AB 2312 in Cali.
One of the leading provisions in this bill is the “cracking down on fraudulent and falsified doctors’ recs.” So when I tell you that these regulations will EXPAND PROHIBITION, there is no bullshit about that. It is written clearly into the law. But the way it is written may bring up some interesting legislation or court cases in the future. Here is the section of AB 2312 that discusses the “new crime” created by this bill aimed at reeling in the issuing and use of falsified doctor recommendations:
The Legislative Counsel’s Digest on the bill says this:
(2) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor offense to, among other things, fraudulently use or obtain a medical marijuana identification card.
>This bill also would make it a misdemeanor offense to knowingly produce, issue, utilize, or sell a falsified, forged, or fraudulent physician’s recommendation for medical marijuana. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The actual law reads:
>(5) A person who knowingly produces, issues, utilizes, or sells a falsified, forged, or fraudulent physician’s recommendation for medical marijuana.
>(c) In addition to the penalties prescribed in subdivision (a), any person described in subdivision (b) may be precluded from attempting to obtain, or obtaining or using, an identification card for a period of up to six months at the discretion of the court.
>(d) In addition to the requirements of this article, the Attorney General shall develop and adopt appropriate guidelines to ensure the security and non-diversion of marijuana grown for medical use by patients qualified under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
So that is a bit interesting to think about, regardless of where you stand on AB 2312. In fact, I am QUITE SURPRISED that the medical marijuana doctors are not out in force to lobby against these provisions. I mean, where is Dr. Jean Talleyrand now? He was so adamant about his opposition to Prop. 19 because it could “possibly interfere with patient access” that surely he would come out very publicly about a bill that would allow law enforcement to decide if a person “fraudulently represents a medical condition.” I mean, Medicann has over 200,000 patients. All of those recommendations will now be subject to review by law enforcement for validity? Sounds like a nightmare. And one of Talleyrand’s opposition points of Prop. 19 was that it still allowed jurisdictions to ban dispensaries, and AB 2312 also allows for them to ban dispensaries stating, “A city or county with a population of at least 50,000 may prohibit the establishment of
medical marijuana dispensaries within its jurisdiction, or limit the number of allowed medical marijuana dispensaries to a number below one per 50,000 residents, if an ordinance or regulation authorizing that restriction has been lawfully enacted by the city, county, or city and county.” So where is the outrage now, doc?
But the “new crime” enacted for “fraudulently represent(ing) a medical condition” brings up quite a conundrum for the “All use is medical” crowd. Under this new crime I seriously doubt that the gatekeepers will agree that all use is medical. What does that mean? It is a very real possibility that tens of thousands of patients’ legal status could be in question, and that people who are being charged by law enforcement can have their medical legitimacy challenged by law enforcement and prosecutors. That is pretty serious stuff; and with the way law enforcement and DA’s have been screaming “most of these people are not really sick and the system is being abused” you can bet your ass that they will see this new provision as a tool to challenge the entire premise of medical cannabis and put people’s medical conditions on trial as a “fraudulent medical condition.” Doctors will have to show up to court to justify their issuing of the
medical recommendation. It could get real nutty. You could see the classic private investigator watching patients under suspicion and documenting their normal healthy activities to use against them in a case, like is often used in insurance fraud claims. It might get quite interesting.
You may be saying, “Now Mickey, you are being paranoid.” Well…maybe. And in no way am I telling anyone to not support AB 2312. That is your choice to make. For me, while I understand that there will likely be some sort of strict regulations passed as long as we are still under the strict medical only flag and that AB2312 may be the best we can get, I just cannot bring myself to actively cheerlead for a bill that will decimate the small grower who cannot afford to pay for the regulatory compliance equipment and procedures, and that will remove thousands of patients from the medical cannabis protections we currently have in place.
There are several other important questions that encompass the AB 2312 discussion. Unfortunately, many of the policy groups and organizations supporting the bill have failed to really explain it very well. Mostly because they likely have no idea how this thing will look in reality. Because the bill simply creates a Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division, a 9-person Board charged with setting the rules and regulations for the industry, and does not actually spell out any of those restrictions or operating standards, we actually have no idea of what this model will end up looking like. Yet, folks blindly follow the lead of ASA and others, without so much as questioning why or how this will all play out. How will the grandfathering of current facilities play out? What rules can the MMED set? How do small patient associations play into the registration program?
There have been many valid questions posed, with very little real response or insight. I could care less if people support the bill or not; and the truth is that it will still likely take a miracle for it to pass…at least in its current form. But I think it is healthy to have an open and honest discussion about how this bill will drastically change the landscape of medical marijuana in California and what that really means for the large majority of us. If we cannot discuss these issue without those supporting it getting all offended that people would question their position, then we are lost. If those who are promoting this issue cannot do a better job of explaining how AB 2312 will be a positive for cannabis users, then they should not be surprised when many in the cannabis community reject it outright.
As for the “protections” that folks believe this will provide from Federal enforcement…good luck with all that shit.
T-Comp Consulting Director
Author of Medical Marijuana 101
***The views expressed in this communication are not necessarily the views of T-Comp Consulting, Tainted Compassion, Cannabis Warrior any other group I am affiliated with.***
- Steve Kubby <s..[email protected]> May 31 12:40AM -0700
Patients fight back against the Federal Crackdown with New Technology
With dispensaries under senseless federal attack and frightened patients being denied safe access to their medicine, one group is fighting back by launching a new social media site that allows patients and providers to find each other for the purpose of obtaining or providing the medicine they need, as authorized by state law.
Utilizing revolutionary new social network software, patients will be able to exercise their rights under California’s SB420 law, to legally provide or obtain their medical cannabis to/from other members of their collective, with reimbursements for out-of-pocket expenses plus their time.
While we can't stop members from trading with other members, we offer a safer alternative for those who have been thoroughly verified as bona fide patients by the HEADBOOK staff. Once you are verified, we give you a password to enter "The Vault" to engage in obtaining or providing medicine with other verified patients.
All verified patient/provider interactions within The Vault are strictly private and protected by extreme 1028 bit encryption.
Since there are no over-the-counter sales, no grows, no buildings to seize and nothing but small scale transactions between verified patients, our legal eagles believe Federal prosecutors would not be able to build a viable case against a social media site that allows patients to interact with each other, as specifically authorized by state law.
There will never be a fee to join HEADBOOK and anyone 18 or older can join for free. All members can take advantage of HEADBOOK benefits, including being able to consult with a top attorney or physician at a drastically reduced price.
The new website will go LIVE at 4:20 PM on June 1st. Go to the HEADBOOK website to preregister as a Charter Member: http://headbook.org/
–Steve Kubby and the HEADBOOK team
- "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <s..[email protected]> May 30 10:25PM -0700
Rock on Dege . Im glad to read something from a patient advocate
organization that was present and that the organization spoke against
Greetings Colleagues -
Yesterday the PLUM Committee heard the ban ordinances and a closed session
on the lawsuits. The ‘gentle’ ban moves forward to the full council
forthwith. The soonest it could appear on the agenda is next Tuesday. I
urge to you check with your attorney to find out your legal strategy for
surviving this ban.
What struck me about this hearing was the utter anger and distain for
patients and collectives from Councilmembers Huizar and Englander.
Englander states that he proudly helped raid all the collectives in the
Devonshire division and all of them were engaged in: rape, murder,
burglary; possession of assault weapons, cocaine and meth. This was the
point of the meeting where I walked out. This was after input from the
public and before closed session. Englander and Huizar had a contest to
see who could pound their chests harder.
However, as a patient advocate I spoke out against ANY ban and in favor of
Councilmember Zine’s original motion to regulate storefront collectives.
I urge you to listen to the meeting. PLUM hearings are not video taped
but audio is available.
I’ve been asked often recently how many patients need to get to city hall
in order to have any impact on the council. The answer – 10,000. That’s
the average number of votes for which each council member is seated. The
ten thousand number gets their attention.
Here are a couple articles:
Executive & Program Director
Patient Advocacy Network
PAN is a charitable 501(c)(3) organization
Axis of Love SF
- Ace <s..[email protected]> May 31 01:55PM -0700
When we were confronted with the city of San Jose's ordinance. We ran a referendum campaign, we raised over $200,000 and got enough signatures to stop the ordinance for at least 1year. In hind sight I wish we would have put together an initiative and just gone with that. We developed initiative language but did not institute it, instead we were talked into going the referendum route. Which will cost double because once the year is up they will attack us again. We will be a target for someone, whether it is police wanting tax dollars, city council members beating their holier than thou pulpit against drugs or someone else. As president of the cannabis patients alliance I would recommend you get ready to campaign to do an imitative!
I ha ve bcc'd another member in case any of you have questions. There was a great deal learned from our fight and hopefully it can translate to your upcoming battle!
Change the world for the better!
- Pebbles Trippet <s..[email protected]> May 31 12:13PM -0700
Where are the righteous lawyers who can help this deserving person?
Joe Grumbine has already won the right to a new trial
due to his obvious innocence and scrupulous approach in helping
He should not have to represent himself and put himself at a
Long Beach PDs are likely to be hostile or at best slackers.
Where art thou, righteous lawyers?
- Terry Vail <s..[email protected]> May 30 09:21PM -0700
FAQ from CRMM website:
Will the AB-2312 withstand legal challenge if the Pack case is upheld?Yes.
The Act is designed to avoid issues related to federal preemption. Because
the Act does not authorize any activity that violates federal law, it is
expected to stand up to scrutiny in the courts. The AB-2312 also contains a
severability clause, so that if a particular provision is rejected by the
courts, the rest of the Act will remain valid.
Is a SEVERABILITY CLAUSE a good thing if the "particular provision's"
rejected by the courts … are the particular provisions that give us the
our particular benefit. I mean to say what if the benefit(wheat) is the
only parts that don't stand up; then we are only left with the the
left-overs from garage sales … you know the shit(chaff) nobody wants.
A Los Angeles city council panel is urging a complete ban on all
medical marijuana dispensaries. Proponents, led by councilman
Huizar, are arguing that current state law doesn't allow for
> "If you don't like the state law, let's change the state law,"
> Huizar told the committee and an audience of about two dozen
> marijuana advocates
The California legislature is currently considering two bills
that would change this situation by clarifying state law to
explicitly allow for dispensaries: AB 2312 by Tom Ammiano, to
establish a state regulation system for medical marijuana
distribution, and SB 1182 by Sen. Mark Leno, which clarifies SB
420. Both bills face a very close vote in the NEXT DAY OR TWO.
Please tell your legislator to support legal access to dispensaries
through the following links:
Support AB 2312:
Support SB 1182:
– Cal NORML
By Rick Orlov, Staff Writer
Posted: 05/29/2012 04:52:54 PM PDT
Updated: 05/29/2012 05:56:10 PM PDT
Faced with more than 70 lawsuits and continuing problems with medical
marijuana dispensaries, a city panel urged Tuesday a complete ban on
all the clinics now operating in the city.
"You tell us there are a few bad apples ruining it for everyone, but
from what I've seen, there are more bad apples than good ones out
there," said Councilman Mitch Englander, who said the estimated 60
dispensaries in his northwest Valley district had been shut down.
Councilman Ed Reyes, chair of the Planning and Land Use Management
Committee, said the city had tried to work with the medical marijuana
"We tried to cooperate but it all ended up blowing in our faces,"
The proposal will now go to the council's Public Safety Committee
before going to the full City Council for consideration.
Councilman Bill Rosendahl urged the panel to adopt a less punitive
measure, that would grandfather in 100 clinics that had complied with
all the earlier rules in effect by the city.
"It is out of control," Rosendahl acknowledged. "I don't like the
proliferation any more than anyone. But the only way to deal with this
is to respect those who have followed the rules and provide the
medicine that people need."
Councilman Jose Huizar said state law allows for patients and their
caregivers – up to three people – to cultivate marijuana on their own.
He has called for the ban on all clinics until the courts can decide
on regulations to be follow.
"Until we have a dispensary model, we are going to be in conflict with
state laws," Huizar said. "The best thing we can do is repeal our
existing ordinance until the courts decide this issue."
The city had tried to establish a lottery system for the clinics, but
that was overturned by the courts in a similar Long Beach case.
Committee Approves 'Gentle Ban' of Marijuana Dispensaries, Full
Council To Take Next Step
Studio City advocates on both sides of the issue spoke up at committee
meeting Tuesday afternoon.
By Mike Szymanski and City News Service
5-29-12 5:58 pm
The Planning and Land Use Management Committee of the Los Angeles City
Council agreed Tuesday afternoon to allow the full City Council to
consider a complete ban on medical marijuana shops in the city limits.
The plan would allow patients to grow their own pot or get it from a
The PLUM committee could have considered a less restrictive plan
proposed by Paul Koretz, who represents parts of Studio City, but the
committee instead approved of a full ban until a decision comes down
from the California Supreme Court over pending lawsuits about the
legal sale of the drug. A ruling by that court is not expected for at
least a year.
Lisa Sarkin, who is the chairperson of the Studio City Land Use
Committee where an advisory commission is hammering out an agreement
between business people and medical marijuana shop owners, attended
the meeting Tuesday.
Although she said she sees the need of the shops to help some people,
she said the proliferation of shops in Studio City is “ridiculous and
unnecessary.” Now there are 13 shops along Ventura Boulevard in an
area with 37,000 people and where there are more medical marijuana
shops than Starbucks, McDonalds and 7-Elevens combined.
“I spoke and recommended that they all be banned until they figure out
how this whole thing can work,” Sarkin said. “It also bothered me
about what police found in some of the other stores in other parts of
Council member Mitchell Englander talked about large amounts of cash
(up to $60,000 worth) and guns at some of the more than 60 shops that
were closed in his district.
Sam Humeid, president and CEO of the Perennial Holistic Wellness
Center in Studio City, pointed out that an advisory committee of the
Studio City Neighborhood Council’s Land Use committee was working on a
groundbreaking set of agreements being hammered out by medical
marijuana shop owners, business owners and residents in Studio City.
The full neighborhood council has yet to take a stand on the issue,
but activists on both sides have been closely watching the plans that
the committee is working on.
Jose Huizar moved to pass along the proposal and Englander seconded
it. It passed unaimously.
The ordinance proposed by Huizar would allow mini- collectives of
three or fewer patients to jointly grow their own marijuana at one
location and would allow patients to transport cannabis.
Huizar and fellow committee members Ed Reyes and Mitch Englander also
disapproved of a separate plan that would have the city refrain from
prosecuting a set of about 100 dispensaries that follow strict
restrictions on where they could operate, the hours they could be
open, and requirements for tight security.
The committee, however, allowed the separate plan by Councilman Koretz
to move forward, citing a request by other council members to hear
both plans at the same time before the full city council.
City officials have been trying since 2007 to regulate dispensaries
and limit their number to close to 100. Early attempts led to an
explosion in the number of dispensaries trying to establish before the
city placed a cap on the total number of pot shops.
The city's effort to allow some dispensaries was thwarted by a ruling
last October by California's 2nd District Court of Appeal, which
struck down attempts by Long Beach to require marijuana collectives to
register with the city and pay fees.
The court ruled that cities may pass laws restricting the rights of
pot shops to operate, but regulations affirming the right for
dispensaries to exist violate federal law, under which marijuana is
listed as an illegal drug banned for all purposes.
Huizar said his plan, dubbed a "gentle ban" by the City Attorney's
Office, is necessary because of poorly written state laws that do not
allow dispensaries and provide too broad of a description of who can
qualify for a medical marijuana prescription.
"If you don't like the state law, let's change the state law," Huizar
told the committee and an audience of about two dozen marijuana
Attorney Steven Lubell, who represents dispensaries in a lawsuit
against the city, said he understands the growth of illegal pot shops
is out of control, but disagreed that banning dispensaries is the way
"You're cutting off access to the patients, which is against what
Proposition 215 says," Lubell said. "Instead of totally banning and
waiting for the supremes to rule, have some form of regulation that
works in the interim."
Medical marijuana supporters told the council that growing medical-
grade marijuana takes years of practice and expertise that average
patients do not have.
The two competing plans will be heard by the public safety committee
as early as Friday before heading to the full council.
- Terry Colorado <s..[email protected]> May 31 07:45AM -0700
From ASA AB2312 SENSIBLE REGULATIONS FOR MEDICAL CANNABIS FACT SHEET
Pays for itself with fees for applicants who grow or
provide medical cannabis on a commercial basis.
How does "commercial basis" reconcile with PACK? My understanding that
selling marijuana commercially is preempted by the feds?
- CSPARC Sacramento <s..[email protected]> May 31 07:58AM -0700
I think all cannabis is preempted by the Feds…..but what Pack says is
that Cities, and in this reference the State can only…
….impose further limitations on medical marijuana dispensaries beyond
those imposed under the Medical Marijuana Program Act, and in no way to
permit or authorize activity prohibited by state or federal law.
My understanding is that there is the right to charge fees for actual costs
of implementation, but that blanket fees not based in any actual costs are
basically making money off of weed, straight up….and that is what is
illegal. What is unclear is if Pack will jive at the State level,
considering decisions like the Kha case, where the supreme court ruled that
officers were bound by state law over fed law. So if state law sets up
these programs, how does that coincide with the bigger picture. State's
Rights are different than county and city rights I believe…
But those are just thoughts, not based in any sort of legal reality over
> > Attachment: http://drugsense.org/temp/Lzg8dFDnv124684.html
> Attachment: http://drugsense.org/temp/Zyt2Jt3cJR25342.html
The Committee for Safe Patient Access to Regulated Cannabis
www.RegulateSac.org and www.CSPARC.org
Find Us on FB Here<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Csparc-Sacramento(phone#-removed)741>
Email: s..[email protected]
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the
meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by
the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may
contain confidential information and work product. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of
the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY
- "andrew garret" <s..[email protected]> May 31 07:48AM -0700
Hey people, need a little help here.
With reference to DOT-HS-808-078 (a study conducted by the national
Highway traffic safely department of the Department of Transportation).
It is my understanding that the study (showing the Cannabis does NOT
EFFECT ones ability to safely drive a car) was censored for a number of
years, and that we were only able to obtain a copy via the freedom of
Does anyone out there know exactly who put the FOIA request in? Also
anything more dealing the the censored nature of the study.
Need the info for a website now being put together.
Sent via Catholic Online Webmail!
Use Catholic Online Webmail to proclaim your faith to the world.
- "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <s..[email protected]> May 30 10:12PM -0700
pls call and email support of lenos bills! They simple and clarifying
and support freedoms.
Calif.: Contact your legislators in advance of deadline
This Friday, June 1, is the last day that bills can be voted on in the
legislative chamber they started in. If they are not voted out of
their chamber by the end of the week, they die. Last Friday, I asked
you to write your senator in support of Sen. Leno's bill to offer
clear legal protections to dispensaries:
http://control.mpp.org/site/R?i=uGxWs-FbzqDO3mm7IMY8hw . Please also
ask your senator to support Leno's SB 1506, which would defelonize
possession of all drugs, including hash:
http://control.mpp.org/site/R?i=pYVINqzuQNGG6CmWVA83Jw . Hash can be
charged as a misdemeanor or a felony now.
The Friday deadline also applies to bills in the Assembly. Email your
assemblymember TODAY and ask him or her to support AB 2312, introduced
by Asm. Tom Ammiano:
http://control.mpp.org/site/R?i=ONche-3IWw075ky1ZcQTRA . If passed,
this proposal would create the Board of Medical Marijuana Enforcement
to oversee and regulate the medical marijuana industry in California.
Remember, the Senate and Assembly must act on these bills by Friday in
order for them to advance to the other chamber or they die. Take
action TODAY and pass this along to your friends and family as well:
Robert J. Capecchi
Marijuana Policy Project
You are receiving this e-mail because you are subscribed to
MPP's national e-mail alerts. To unsubscribe, click the link at
the bottom of this message. Removal may take up to two business days.
To contact MPP, please click here or reply to this e-mail. Our mailing
address is Marijuana Policy Project, 236 Massachusetts Ave. NE, Suite
400, Washington, D.C. 20002. Any donations you make to MPP may be used
for political purposes, such as supporting or opposing candidates for
View this message in your browser | Forward this
message | Change your e-mail preferences
Axis of Love SF