Update, 2:39 p.m.: The signatures in support of a referendum against the medical marijuana dispensary ban have been submitted to the city clerk's office, according to City News Service.
---
An ordinance that would ban marijuana dispensaries from operating in Los Angeles could be put on hold and possibly left to voters to decide, if a petition on its way to the city clerk is ruled valid.
The petition, comprised of about 50,000 signatures, was submitted to the Los Angeles City Clerk's Office Thursday and calls for a referendum next March on the new ordinance banning storefront dispensaries effective Sept. 6. But the petition's immediate effect would be to prevent the ordinance from even going into effect.
Activists who sponsored the petition drive formally announced their plans at a Wednesday morning press conference at the Universal Sheraton in Universal City.
The City Council voted last month to ban the dispensaries, citing conflicting court opinions about whether the city can legally regulate cannabis collectives. While banning storefront dispensaries, the city will allow licensed patients or caregivers to grow and transport their own medical marijuana, under the ordinance.
After the vote, the City Attorney's Office sent letters to 1,046 suspected dispensary locations warning them to shut down by Sept. 6 or face court action and a $2,500 fine for every day they remain open past the deadline. Medical marijuana supporters quickly mounted a signature-gathering effort in hopes of forcing a referendum on the issue.
A minimum of 27,425 signatures is required to get the issue on the ballot, according to petition-drive organizers, who say they've collected around twice that many. Once the petition is submitted, the City Clerk's office will verify the signatures against voter registration information.
If the petition is determined to pass muster, the City Council would have 20 days to either repeal the ordinance or leave the decision up to voters in next year's municipal election on March 5, said Kimberly Briggs, media specialist with the city clerk's election divsion.
"Legally, we have 15 days to verify the signatures on the petition," Briggs said.
Councilman Jose Huizar, who champions the ban, said the submission of
signatures does not necessarily mean storefront medical marijuana shops will be spared legal action, even though the ordinance that provides for the storefront ban would be put on hold.
According to Huizar, filing petition signatures means the city's "Sunset Clause'' will kick in, "which outlaws storefront dispensaries and only allows, per state law, for a qualified patient or their caregiver to grow their own or collectives consisting of three or fewer qualified patients or their caregivers.''
Officials in the office of City Attorney Carmen Trutanich have advanced similar opinions about the city's options, but medical marijuana advocates disagree.
"State law is clear -- selling medical marijuana for profit is illegal,'' Huizar said. The referendum effort "does not change that and doesn't protect dispensary owners from prosecution if they engage in illegal activity.''
If placed on the ballot next March, the referendum on the ban will take place at the same time as Angelenos elect a new mayor. Medical marijuana activists say, however, that they hope the Council revisits the idea of a total ban, in which case no referendum will be necessary.
"We want a strict regulatory system in place to ensure safe access for patients and a nuisance-free process for neighborhoods,'' referendum proponent Norma Schaffer said. "This one-size-fits-all ban not only hurts patients, but it eliminates dispensaries playing by the rules while doing little to shut down rogue dispensaries.
"We need good policy, not knee-jerk bans that make the problem worse,'' she said. "We're confident the voters of Los Angeles will agree with us.''
A number of pro-medical marijuana organizations and medical marijuana users with various illnesses gathered at the Universal Sheraton on Wednedsay to announce the intention of seeking a referendum.
Rick Icaza, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 770, which represents dispensary workers from about 40 storefronts, spoke in favor of drafting a more lenient ordinance.
"This referendum will give the city an opportunity to have a real discussion about compassionate use, one outside the narrow halls of politics and politicians," he said. "We disagree that the best way to respond to the neighborhood concerns with certain dispensaries was to ban them all outright. We are seeking a compromise solution."
One of the patients to speak was Linda Leek, who said she has used marijuana for four years to help her deal with thyroid myalgia. She said the few exceptions outlined in the new ordinance would make it harder to obtain cannabis.
Under the new policy, primary caregivers to grow and transport medical marijuana. In addition, two or three patients would be able to collectively grow and share medical marijuana in their homes, but not storefronts.
"I can't grow it on my own," Leek said. "I can't afford to grow it on my own. I would not know the knowledge to grow it on my own."
Don Duncan, director of Americans for Safe Access, said he views regulation as the best alternative to banning medical marijuana dispensaries.
He said one approach would be to carefully plan the location of such storefronts so that they are not allowed to operate near churches, schools and parks.
Duncan said if better regulation means shutting down some marijuana shops to keep others open at more appropriate locations, it would be worth it.
"We know when we call for regulations that not everyone is going to meet the standard and be able to operate under those regulations," he said. "And that may be an acceptable outcome so long as we preserve some access for patients."
On Aug. 17, a medical marijuana trade group called the Patient Care Alliance filed a lawsuit in hopes of blocking the marijuana ban, calling it a "reckless, baseless and heartless act of denial of necessary medical services.''
One of the champions of the ban, Councilman Jose Huizar, said after the council's vote in July that the city's action still provides safe access to marijuana for patients who need it, but also puts the city on solid legal footing and alleviates quality-of-life issues that constituents complain about.
"Relief is coming in the form of having a more focused and intense crackdown on these dispensaries that cause problems in our neighborhoods,'' Huizar said.
Councilman Paul Koretz, an ally of the medical marijuana community, advocates allowing 100 or so of the city's oldest dispensaries to remain open.
If you want to keep your teens away from Pot, EDUCATE THEM instead of locking it all up and saying, 'No, No, No! You'll be punished!' That way, they themselves can make decisions based on facts. Or do you not trust your kids to make smart, intelligent decisions? I don't know you and don't know how you are with your kids. So, no need to defend your parenting with me. But I can say, first hand, that educating kids and allowing them to make their own decisions is much more productive than just forbidding things. I also agree that a compromise is needed. A total ban is ridiculous and counterproductive. As for selling to underage people, I have NOT ONCE come across an MMD that has sold to anyone without a prescription. The underage argument is moot because anyone can get a prescription from a doctor, even a minor. Having said that, I have never come across a place that doesn't have an 'over 18 only' sign on it. I'm sure you'd have a hard time finding one that allows anyone in that is under 18. If you've ever been into an MMD, you will see that it is commonplace to sign a rule sheet that states you will wait to get home to medicate. So, that's taken care of.
The insults go both way, my friend. Hit ctrl+f on your keyboard and type, 'stoner', 'addict', 'low class', and the like. So how about we work together? This is something I've never heard from Michael Larsen. Hopefully, the new Council will be less ideological and more open to discussion.
Just some troll getting a kick out of seeing you guys get all up in arms over his asinine comments.
I didn't know your nose was so much more sensitive than everyone else's! Please point out one of these dreadful smelling places so I can go see for myself! You said: "If the folks with this awful addiction would seek help there would not be this debate." I say: If people weren't so hysterical about this topic we could probably find a compromise.
Ah, it looks like I've earned a troll. Yay! Just so you know, I only smoke the good ganja delivered by real Jamaicans, and I do it in front of elementary schools every day while I sell crack and porn to the kiddies. Don't you have a hippie wedding to officiate today? Or a Teabagger rally to attend? I hear John Birch himself is coming to the next one. /s
Ah, man, just when I was getting warmed up too. I haven't had a good troll war in a week. Just so you know, I trained at Reddit doing battle with liberal college kids and have earned a black belt in internet fencing. Let me share this with you - politics, whether local or national, is a two way street. If you don't look both ways before you step into traffic you're liable to get run over. The internet is a wonderful thing because it provides opinions and data from all over the spectrum, and to only look at the things that support your own bias just gives you half of the picture on any topic. That's not very useful when we need progress. Makuna matata!
Happily enough - nothing that ERHS Moms, ML, Paul, the MOG (or Margarito Martinez or whatever else he wants to call himself), or any of the small clique of anti-MMJ propagandists says will ever chang ehte facts. MMJ is quite popular, here in LA and Cali more generally. The arguments against are mere pro-prohibitionist prongs, attempting to undermine the STATE Constitution. If some people are violating the law the answer is to actually catch them doing it...not collectively punish the innocent and responsible users, of a drug that is safe and probably MORE useful than aspirin and tylenol combined. As for whether there are too many shops in ER or any other neighborhood - the answer to that question was given by a Federal judge the last time the city tried to create a ban (masquerading as a 'moratorium') on MMJ/MMD's - "let the free market decide the question". Too many shops too close to one another (to support the amount of medically-approved need), will result in less shops - magically, by the 'hidden hand of the market'. The NIMBY's and dubious advocates for children need to amend the constitution the way supporters of Prop 215 did (myself included) - by getting an amendment on the ballot, and getting Californians to vote for it. These attempts to cirvumvent the process by top-down votes of the City Council are simply wishfull thinking, and political window dressing...
Of course the common peace - and the common law from which it comes to us - appears to be entirely foreign to your colonized consciousness. Allow me to remind you that when the California Republic was founded, that out legislators adopted the Common Law of England as the base from which all other State law would grow - as opposed to the Napoleonic Code and Roman Civil Law which had been prevalent here under the rule of Mexico. Under Common law, it is your duty to mind your own business, unless you have some VERIFIABLE damages. At which point you have grounds to sue, or bring a criminal action. Until then you're just a busy-body meddling in the lives of others - without any JUST CAUSE. Do people have the right not to have smokers of tobacco out front of their homes? Given your (lack of) logic and reasoning, I can't see why not. So allow me to remind you - your property rights end at your property lines. Who are you to make detereminations about any patient or Dr.? NOBODY!!! MYOB, and raise your own kids.
ERHS Moms sounds like a veritable advocate for the Police Protective league (like Dennis Zine, who held the title officially - prior to keeping it covertly in his role on the City Council) - who need the 'war on weed' to justify their bloated and militarized police force (which as we've seen in recent weeks, harbors more than a few violent and sadistic, authoritarian personality types). If MMJ was having any negative effect on 'Traffic safety' - where are the numbers to back this claim up. Answer - they just aren't there. If anything traffic safety has INCREASED during the last 16 years - so there goes that argument. On the BBC program "Should I smoke pot (weed?)?" the host performed tests of her skills behind the wheel, on both pot and alcohol. She failed with fatal consequences on the booze - hitting a stroller, in the fairly unrealistic and rigged test, as it was set up. She also failed on the weed - but only because she couldn't make herself reach 55 MPH, a minimum threshhold/criteria for taking the test. She was so paranoid or otherwise impaired, that she was too safe to take the test - which required the driver to navigate a ridiculously narrow set of cones, where at some point a stroller would be thrust from behind an obscuring object, and into the driver's path. The only crime in going slow is impeding the flow.
Ms. Broide - I voted for the law too - and like thing s the way they are (aside from the persistent and on-going attempts by the DEA, US Attorneys, and various fascists at the local level to undermine and THWART the State law). If the status quo in LA is such a problem for you - can I assume that you were up-in-arms when the Feds shut down the Oaksterdam University, and the related Dispensaries in the Bay area (far less numerous, and therefore much bigger)? Where were you when they prosecuted the only dipensary owner in Morro Bay? If you care about the forests (which are cultivated by non-MMJ growers - just like they have been since at least the begining of the "CAMP program" in the 1980's), then don't shut down legitimate attempts to meet the needs of the medical market. Otherwise the Cartels and black-marketeers will be forced out into the forests. Of ciurse if you could prove any of the BS that you're spreading, you'd have fertile grounds for prosecution. But until then, it's just non-sense masquerading as facts. Why would someone grow MMJ illegally in a forest, when they could do it legally in any field? Why would the cartels take less money for their crops here in the shops - when they could achieve much higher profits out-of-state? How does it feel to be in the minority - in a losing struggle?
Here in Venice, the NC held a Townhall meeting on the issue. The people here were almost unanimously against any new regulations/moratoriums - or bans by any other name - as proposed by the City Council (using the fig leaf of 'community support' which losers like this Larsen character, and the stooges in Studio City offer them - to advance the agenda coming from Washington D.C. and Sacramento, and on the local level from gangsters, cops and their crooked cohorts).
Does anyone else remember when the John Ashcroft DEA/"Justice" Dept., used the political distraction caused by the events of September 11th, 2001, to raid the West Hollywood Cannabis Buyers club (at the time the first and ONLY dispensary here in SoCal)? There were plenty of our LGBTQ brethren OUT in the streets, demanding an end to this sort of Federal over-reach. It didn't matter that the WH City Council and Sherrif were both in support of the institution - though the Sherrif's NARC squad may have been in on the raid on some level. It was clear THEN AS NOW - that the prohibitionist forces viewed ANY MMJ/MMD as a threat to their ideological hegemony on the subject of Marijuana more broadly. And we see the same continuing in this thread. If you can't have a shop anywhere - where are you supposed to get access to your medicine from? If no one can receive a paycheck - how can you keep a shop open? Are all the ER reactionaries wringing their hands when Anaheim closes down it's only 2 or 3 shops? Apparently NOT! Get used to the facts LOSERS - MMJ and MMDs are here to stay. If there was no demand - then there would be no shops. Unless you are an expert in Medicine - your uninformed opinions on whose use and whose Dr. is legitimate is meaningless. The CA Medical Association supports MMJ. If there needs to be more "regulation", it should come from them.
Quite to the contrary. In cities like SM and WH - and wherever else the question winds up on the ballot - the people demand that cops make MJ "law" enforcement their LOWEST PRIORITY. It is only the self-appointed guardians of the public "morality" who appear to be concerned, at all. If you think that Mayor Pendejo is listening to, and hearing, the majority - just go back and watch the DNC coverage from tonight, on the subject of "God" in the platform, and recognizing Jerusalem as Irsrael's Capital (international law not withstanding).... Despite the Noes clearly having it - three times in a row - he demonstrated that he listens to 'the people that matter' - not 'the little people'. Sorry Amanda, but the concerns of the community are clearly united against the prohibitionists, and in favor of the MMD's. And most Dispensaries already HAVE (private) rules, which address the fake "concerns" being raised by the pohitionists' stooges - for which they can provide nothing but unverifiable, anecdotal evidence. If they have ecidence of some club members violating those rules - they should provide proof to the management - who will promptly expel the offenders, in most cases.
Tough! Don't like the law - start your own (losing) campaign to change it. Until then, let the market work out what amounts to too many shops. Otherwise you'll have phyrric victory after phyrric victory - only to be reversed by the courts (when they see fit to honor the LAW, as opposed to "Law" Enforcement).
You are a troll regardless of your orientation. Roy Cohn (and even J Edgar Hoover - in all likely hood) was gay. Still an asshole... You don't understand enough about the practice of medicine or MMJ, to make any kind of informed commentary on the subject. Get a life, you clueless weirdo...
Cigarettes have always smelled. It was only upon the predicate that they posed a "Public Health Risk" that second-hand smoke laws were everf deemed plausibly lawful. To the contrary - pot helps CURE cancerous tumors in mice. We'd know more about humans - but the FDA and DEA will only sponsor/allow research into why pot is BAD for you. Nonetheless. LA's Building and Safety police, have ensured that no clubs in LA allow smoking on their premises. There used to be several clubs that had onsite areas for medicating - but under the flawed logic of pot smoke= tobacco smoke, the city shut that down.
If his story IS true - he doesn't indicate clearly that his dad was a patient. If he was, perhaps he should see the man's recommending physician, and express his concerns to someone that could have an influence on the matter. But the reality is - if his dad wanted to, he could just go to the Black Market (run by La EME), to get his weed illegally, the way everyone did (even those whose use was medicinal) - for decades prior to Prop 215. If anything, his pot use would be a harm reduction strategy - because he would no doubt be hooked on Heroin or Meth, otherwise. From what I've seen, you STOOGES for the cops, tend to believe your own (and one another's) BS - way too much. The rest of us aren't buying it...