[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

[BrattonBasher]

Thanks JOV. I was glad to read in the L.A.Times this morning of your victory regarding the delay. Dirty pool is a PERFECT analogy of what Corrupt Rocky tried to pull. Please if you can, let us WT'ers know of any future meetings in advance so those of us handcuffed to our desks can submit written statements. Keep up the fight, you are an MMJ Warrior, and I mean it!

[60's hippie]

I always appreciate accurate information.

From one advocate to another, I thank you.

[juangoodman]

L.A. Times article: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...289,full.story

Panel delays vote on marijuana law

Members of the Los Angeles City Council's planning committee delayed a decision on a new medical marijuana ordinance that would have created regulated collectives operating in city limits. The draft ordinance would have required each member of a medical marijuana collective to register under penalty of perjury with the city clerk's office, and required each collective to install an alarm system and a television surveillance system, and to store dried marijuana in a locked vault or safe. The draft also would have explicitly barred the sale of marijuana, marijuana-enhanced or edible products by collectives.

Councilman Dennis Zine said he was concerned the ordinance would essentially shut down many of the city's storefront medical marijuana dispensaries.

The city attorney's office contends that many of the nearly 400 medical marijuana clubs and dispensaries are operating illegally.

About a dozen medical marijuana advocates, patients and collective owners criticized the proposed ordinance at the planning committee meeting Thursday and urged council members to delay a decision, noting they got the draft just hours before the meeting. A chief complaint was that the city attorney's office did not include any suggestions put forward by medical marijuana patients and activists who participated in a working group for more than a year.

Councilman Ed Reyes, the chairman of the committee, has asked advocates and officials from the city attorney's office, as well as police officials, to meet with him in a week to hammer out a revised ordinance.

-- Maeve Reston OAKLAND

Zine in, Delgadillo OUT!!!! "The draft also would have explicitly barred the sale of marijuana, marijuana-enhanced or edible products by collectives." I hope this was a typo by the Times but if it is not then what are the co-ops going to sell? I hope everyone realizes what almost happened here. Thanks to all that showed up and carried the day for us all! Thank you JOV

[stanleyk]

Thanks for being there, representing the community and putting out a nice summary, JOV.

[Jcrasta]

THANKS JOV FOR ALL THE UPDATES. I ACTUALLY LISTENED IN ON THE MEETING LIVE WHILE AT WORK. I ALSO AGREE THAT RELEASING THE DRAFT AT 2AM THE SAME THEY THE MEETING WAS A JOKE. THANKS AGAIN.

ONE LOVE AND NUFF RESPECT TO ALL WHO SPOKE AT THE MEETING.

JC

[TheTruth.LA]

Originally Posted by 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

Thank you! I listened to the meeting online yesterday. Mad Respect!

[b1joy2c]

A huge thank you to JOV for being there and for articulating the destination and boundaries for the many of those who have a vested interest in the outcome of our access to medication for our diverse ills.

You are my hero who takes the time and effort it takes to monitor and hopefully keep our collectives open, accessible and safe. The safety is now an issue for all involved. Again thanks for your energy and effort for the cause.

[Fisherman Bob]

Thanks for keeping us up to date JOV.Tried to pull a fast one on use glad it didn't go through.Gives us time to regroup,at least we know now its coming.If I can help let me know.

FISHERMAN BOB

[Ingrid_SwissMeds]

Thanks for all your hard work and endurance!!!
Keep up the good fight!

peace

[KushMeister]

Thanks to Jov, Nepeta (oops! I meant Yamita), and the several others, who spoke up for our community yesterday!

I pray that we are given sufficient notification before the next city council meeting, so that we can attend in much greater numbers!

You have my pledge to attend the next one (as long as I know prior to a few hours before the meeting).

**edit:
Sorry for not giving credit to Yamita

[Justonevoice]

When we planned going to this meeting we where under the opinion that the regulation was just stalled and that we would be pushing the committee to send back the first drft to the CA so we did not think it was needed to pack the room. We where thrown a curve ball which thankfully we did not get struck out.

JOV

[Xeth]

Delgadillo,

First came the stories about Michelle Delgadillo driving without a valid driver's license, and then emerged the stories about Delgadillo driving without auto insurance. You know, both of those things are pretty big no-nos. Especially considering that the suspended license charge was the same one that Delgadillo prosecuted Paris Hilton for. Now, Mrs. Delgadillo didn't have the extensive history of run-ins with the lase like Paris Hilton, but it does seem a bit sketchy.

And that's not all on the driving mishaps. You can throw in the fact that Mrs. Delgadillo backed into a pole with a city SUV (while driving without a license), and then Rocky had it repaired at city expense. Rocky since reimbursed the city for the repairs.

But, wait, there's more. Next, allegations that Delgadillo used his staff, improperly, for babysitting and other services came to light. But, don't you worry, his staff used "personal time" to run Delgadillo's errands.

But, of course, there is more to the story. It appears that Mrs. Delgadillo didn't pay taxes on her business, CRD,Inc. On disclosure forms, Rocky said that the business made between $10K-100K from 2002-2005. Generally, people file taxes when they make money. That's kinda the deal, sorry Delgadillo Family.

Anyway, it's really too bad that this is happening, but at this point Mr. Delgadillo's resignation isn't a case of if but when. It's a tragedy on many levels.


That was written Sat Jun 23, 2007 and the man stayed in office, so he obviously is very corrupt. At one time the San Francisco FBI began a criminal investigation of Delgadillo over his admitted ethical lapses yet obviously nothing ever came of it. According to the City Controller he has resisted allowing an audit of 128 million dollars from a workers compensation program.

In June, 2004, Delgadillo paid $11,450 in fines after the city ethics commission accused him of campaign finance violations in his first run for city attorney.

I could go on and on but I think everyones getting the picture that this guy is a real corrupt individual who is politically motivated.

He is running for state Attorney General in 2010 by the way.

[portopaintball]

thing is about this kind of issue is the hippocrates in office will keep pushing and pushing it away until they are backed into a corner and the public wants an answer. They are delaying the inevitable of marijuana being legalized. THe only reason they are taking so long is because they are devising a plan in which they can reap the most benefit from the legalization aka. Money. Our national debt would be payed for in 3 years once medical marijuana's legalized. Come on Obama hurry up. :slaugh:

[Justonevoice]

There will be another meeting in 30 days or so and I will post that info here. Next week invited advocates and city staff will meet in Councilman Reyes's office to find a solution. Our feelings and thoughts will be reflected as they where at the last meeting.

[Mr_phlebotomy]

Thanks for the info i would like to attend the next meeting although Kern county no longer lets Patients get meds here. i sure as hell wont give up LA county without a fight i vowed to never take Morphine and pills again ill be damned if im forced back into taking pharmaceuticals that make me sick.

If we need Petitions or something let us know

IM JUST GLAD WE DIDNT LOSE OUR DISPENSARY'S THE OTHER DAY

[Jeffster]

Wow, that sounds like a close one. Thanks JOV, Nepeta, and everyone else for the good fight, and the heads up.

[BrattonBasher]

Originally Posted by Justonevoice

There will be another meeting in 30 days or so and I will post that info here. Next week invited advocates and city staff will meet in Councilman Reyes's office to find a solution. Our feelings and thoughts will be reflected as they where at the last meeting.

Keep representing us with HONOR JOV!

[Justonevoice]

So on Feb 03,2009 we had a open meeting to discuss the City Attorneys bullshit Draft Ordinance. About 20-30 people showed up. Patients,Patient Advocates & Collective Operators discussed the issues and came up with a concenus of the changes we all need. I have attatched the reponse to the City that reflects the outcome of that meeting.

Much Love & Respect,

JOV

P.S. Along with this letter other informational corespondance was also sent relating to other cities and counties that have regulated collectives.

[ironchefblue]

Now that's a well crafted response, I'm impressed. I'm eager to see how the city responds.

[Justonevoice]

Advocates joined LA Councilmember Dennis Zine in rejecting the City Attorney’s draft in January, calling for the committee to ask for a new ordinance based on the existing Los Angeles County medical cannabis ordinance and incorporating the input of the an ad hoc working group convened by the Planning Department in 2007. The City Attorney’s draft regards all sales of cannabis as illegal, even within a legitimate collective or cooperative of patients. It essentially bans storefront facilities that provide medicine and set onerous restrictions on lawful cultivation.

Today advocates met with the Councilmember Reyes and all involved City Staff in Councilmember Reyes’ Office to discuss the problems and concerns with the draft ordinance from the City Attorney the outcome is yet to be known because Councilmember Reyes made no decision based on today’s meeting. Instead, he promised to confer with city staff before the issue comes back to the PLUM Committee later this month. It was the impression of advocates that the Councilmember and some city staff members were attentive to the concerns of advocates, whose comments dominated most of the meeting. Input from city staff and law enforcement was relatively limited.

Advocates raised numerous issues regarding the draft ordinance and the need for a better option. The meeting opened by expressing our concern that the ordinance seeks to regulate cultivation, instead of the storefront facilities that provide medicine to members of legal collectives and cooperatives. I asked the Councilmember to reject the ordinance in favor of a land-use based approach to regulating storefront facilities.

It is important that these Council Members and the City Attorney keep hearing from us. The City Attorney needs to understand that we know the he is getting ready to run for State Attorney General and that we can have an effect on his run for that office.

Please take the time to contact these folks and express our concerns in a polite manner so they understand the brevity of this ordinance.

Rocky Delgadillo, City Attorney
800 City Hall East
200 North Main Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 978-8100
Fax: (213) 978-8312
TDD: (213) 978-8310
Rocky.Delgadillo@lacity.org

Councilmember Ed Reyes
City Hall Office (213)-473-7001
200 N. Spring Street, Rm 410
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Councilmember.reyes@lacity.org



Councilmember Huizar
City Hall Office (213)-473-7014
200 N. Spring Street, Rm 465
Los Angeles, CA 90012
councilmember.huizar@lacity.org