[Justonevoice]

I attended the PLUM (Planning and land use management) Committee meeting yesterday. As many of you know our regulation here in LA had been effectively stalled of late till we put fire under the asses of our city council be attending and speaking at City Council meeting for the last five weeks or so. Well it appears that the ordinance got bogged down by the City Attorney (CA) whom was asked to rewrite the original draft ord which was unworkable and did not address storefront collectives but instead spoke of only grow-ops. This did not reflect the distribution system set up and condoned by the Attorney General of California.

So the un-honorable Rocky Delgadillo is against us and was stalling this rewrite it appears. So the issue was sent back to the PLUM Committee that held a meeting yesterday in which the C.A. the morning of this meeting released to us a new draft. This was received @ 2:00 am the morning of an important meeting in which the Committee was supposed to vote on the ord. Dirty pool to say the least. This draft was even worse then the last including things like “every collective wishing to operate in the city close till they can come into compliance“ among other unreasonable issues.

There were many of us there whom spoke including myself. The theme throughout the meeting as we addressed the committee was pretty much the same that this was #1 unfair to give us this new draft the day of the vote.#2 The fact that the CA did not even quote the State AG Guidelines and only sb420 and prop 215 (and inaccurately I might add).We asked that the committee reject or at the very least continue the meeting for 30 days or so for us and council may soak in what all was actually in this draft. Our voice was heard.

Chairman Reyes will convene a first of its kind meeting of stakeholders at his office in one week to discuss the ordinance. Then, the City Attorney will have 30 days to return comments or a new draft ordinance to the committee.

All advocates there regard the ordinance as unworkable, because it is based on the faulty assumption that storefront facilities maintained by patients’ collectives are unlawful and can not be regulated. The City Attorney’s opinion is in direct conflict with California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s guidelines for medical cannabis published in August of 2008, which state, “It is the opinion of this Office that a properly organized and operated collective or cooperative that dispenses medical marijuana through a storefront may be lawful under California law.”

Dozens of cities and counties in California have already adopted regulations for storefront collectives and cooperatives, including Los Angeles County and the City of West Hollywood. Research and experience shows that sensible regulations reduce crime and complaints. Patients and advocates have rallied behind Los Angeles City Council Member Dennis Zine’s efforts to regulate the facilities.

The Los Angeles City Attorney has not kept pace with evolving medical cannabis law. More importantly, he does not wish to legitimize medical cannabis by regulating the facilities maintained by legal collectives. This represents a deep-seated opposition that is all too common among our elected officials.. We can not let our optimism about likely progress in Washington, DC, lull us into a false sense of security on the local level. Medical cannabis opponents at the local level are still looking to roll back patients’ rights. We must stay vigilant to be sure they do not.

Much Love & Respect,

JOV