[ShiningSkull]

If you live in the City of Los Angeles, please make a call to your Councilmember to register your objection to the following ordinance section that would allow police access to patient records:

SEC.46.71. INSPECTION AUTHORITY AND ENFORCEMENT. The Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety and the Los Angeles Police Department shall have the right to enter the Medical Marijuana Cooperative/Collective from time to time unannounced for the purpose of making reasonable inspections to observe and enforce compliance with this Article and all laws of the City and State of California. An outstanding Order to Comply from the Department of Building and Safety shall constitute a violation of this Code.

This is first person narrative of the arguments made by Chuck Linder in this post: Response to 9/29 PLUM Meeting rpt

You can use this as a script:

If you are in the City of Los Angeles, dial "311" and you will get a City Hall operator.

If you do not know who your councilman is, give the 311 operator your address, and he/she will tell you which member represents you.

Politely ask to be connected with the Council Member's office. If you are a patient, you will eventually be connected with a staff member.

Tell the staff member:

I'm a medical marijuana patient and I'm very concerned that the new proposed marijuana dispensary ordinance will allow the police to look through patient records, without any warrant or other judicial order. Specifically, I'm objecting to Section 46.71.

Go as far as you want with any or all of the rest of this...

In California, Physician's Recommendations are just like medical prescriptions.

Patients like me, who have a physician's recommendation should not be subject to law enforcement officers invading our privacy, especially when they have no court order, search warrant or a valid subpoena.

Section 46.71 is also in direct conflict with Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution, which states:
“All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

This ordinance will permit police, at their whim, to go through, copy, and/or seize patient records from medical marijuana collectives.

Police will be able to seize patient records without any finding of probable cause to even believe that a crime has been committed.

Federal HIPAA medical privacy laws define marijuana dispensaries as "providers." Therefore, I believe this ordinance invades my medical privacy rights under federal law.

I object to the attempt by a local city council to sidestep medical privacy protections through SEC.46.71.

[ShiningSkull]

Also, I don't think VooDoo Chile would mind if you borrow some of the great language she uses in her letter to her council member (bolded emphasis mine):

Originally Posted by VooDoo Chile

Well, since ya asked.....here's my long ass letter! LOL

Honorable Council:
My name is [Insert VooDoo Chile's Real Name Here]. I am a Canoga Park resident and Medical Marijuana patient. I am writing to you for two reasons. First, I wish to express my full support for implementing reasonable regulations on Medical Marijuana facilities. As a patient, I feel this is vital to ensuring safe access to uncontaminated medicine for me and my fellow patients. Second, while I support the idea of regulation in theory, I am concerned about certain aspects of the City Attorney’s proposed regulations. In this letter I will identify the specific areas I find problematic, explain the nature of my misgivings, and provide a suggestion for future revision.

Let us begin on page 2 of the proposal. In the first paragraph on page 2, the City Attorney stipulates that the ensuing regulations, “[…]Do not provide for ‘storefront dispensaries’ engaged in the sale of marijuana.” Perhaps the City Attorney is simply unaware that the California State Supreme Court recently ruled that patients need not physically participate in cultivation of their medicine and may make purely financial contributions to their collectives (see Butte v Superior Court). I respectfully request that the City Attorney review and modify the proposed regulations in light of the court’s ruling to ensure compliance with state law.

In the third paragraph of pg. 2 under the heading, “CEQA Finding,” the City Attorney explicitly conveys his true intentions when he states that the proposed regulations, “[…]Will result in a substantial decrease in the number of locations that are currently in existence.” Obviously, the City Attorney’s goal is to considerably limit the number of collectives within the city of Los Angeles. This is an unwise decision, especially in light of the violation of due process rights demonstrated at the City Council’s Hardship Hearings for post-ICO collectives.

Furthermore, the City Attorney may be far underestimating the number of
Medical Marijuana patients within the city of Los Angeles alone. Considering that many patients residing in neighboring cities and counties travel to Los Angeles to obtain access to their medicine, the number of patients utilizing Los Angeles collectives increases exponentially. The fact of the matter is, Los Angeles collectives serve thousands, if not millions of patients. I suggest the City Attorney consider the inevitable negative repercussions of attempting to close too many collectives. Not only would the growing number of patients face a shortage of available medicine, but the City would have to finance the enforcement of its own policy. This is simply not financially feasible. The City already faces severe budget problems. Adding such a massive expense is a waste of time and scant resources.

Americans for Safe Access has already submitted a brief challenging several portions of the proposed regulations, particularly with respect the excessive financial burden of requiring collectives to conduct extensive background checks on their employees/volunteers, and installing the required surveillance equipment. I agree with them wholeheartedly. These provisions represent a significant and unnecessary economic barrier to nonprofit collectives. Their brief also raises valid questions as to the constitutionality of allowing Law Enforcement Officers unfettered access to patient’s medical and personal information. I believe they are correct in asserting that this violates patients’ right to privacy guaranteed to all citizens in Article I of the California Constitution.

Moreover, the City Attorney’s proposal specifically outlaws, “[…] The sale of edible products containing marijuana.” I understand that the City Council wishes to protect patients from consuming unsafe medicinal edibles, or edible products without the necessary nutritional and/or ingredient information. Yet, issuing a blanket ban ignores the needs of seriously ill patients who are unable to inhale their medicine for whatever reasons. These patients need their medicine just as much as those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to inhale it; their rights to safe access should not be denied. Instead of prohibiting medicinal edibles altogether, the City Council should consider creating reasonable regulations on the medicine edibles industry at a later date. Medicinal edibles should be subject to the same health and safety codes as similar, non-medicinal food products.

Again, I wish to thank the City Council for attempting to resolve this most important issue. I believe adopting reasonable regulations the first time around are the key to establishing an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust between the Council and the Medical Marijuana Community. Thank you for listening to my concerns. I look forward to seeing the Council’s finished product and ask that you keep us, the patients, on the forefront as you deliberate on matters that deeply impact our ability to safely access our medicine.
Sincerely,
[Insert VooDoo's Real Name Here]
Graduating Senior
Department of Political Science
California State University, Northridge


Hope this inspires y'all to write, write, write!

[VooDoo Chile]

Mind? Do I ever! I mind like a mofo! That letter's mine, all mine!

No really, it's an honor to have ya repost my letter Shining Skull.

Now what's everybody waiting for? CALL, WRITE, E-MAIL, PROTEST, NOW!!!!!!!

[ShiningSkull]

Originally Posted by VooDoo Chile

Mind? Do I ever! I mind like a mofo! That letter's mine, all mine!

No really, it's an honor to have ya repost my letter Shining Skull.

Now what's everybody waiting for? CALL, WRITE, E-MAIL, PROTEST, NOW!!!!!!!

Thanks for your generosity, VooDoo!

For those of you who have already articulated your objections to your City Councilmember, and/or our City and District Attorneys, please consider sharing your arguments here.

Your statement, in your own voice, may make it easier for someone else to make the call and/or email. Maybe more people will contact our elected Los Angeles officials if they don't have to do a big homework assignment and can just copy yours!

Thanks in advance!

[ShiningSkull]

This thread, http://www.weedtracker.com/forums/co...ct-156653.html, from the eminent Cornerstone Research Collective, includes arguments and elected official info.

I'm including here a couple of full post quotes from that thread, including the original appeal from Eagle Rock Guru, Morpheus. And from Snappyfingers comes a great graphic and the info for contacting the LA City and County Attorneys, to whom the same message needs to be delivered.

Thanks, guys!

Originally Posted by morpheus

The Los Angeles City Attorney's office is advising the LA City Council that all medical cannabis sales are illegal. The City Attorney's office would like to shut down every collective in the city this month...

I'm certain that the LA City Attorney's office if filled with fine, well-meaning attorneys that are simply offering their considered legal opinion, even if it was spun by their opposition to the entire concept of dispensing collectives.

Call your Los Angeles City Councilmember's office and express your disappointment that the city is not regulating medical cannabis dispensaries. Be respectful. Gently remind them that San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley and many other cities have successfully regulated medical cannabis sales... Why can't LA?

Call Carmen Trutanich's office and respectfully ask why the City Attorney's office is interpreting medical cannabis law differently than San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley.

Don't do any of the above if you miss the days when securing medical cannabis consisted of waiting in a state of fear in some McDonald's parking lot for some shady guy to show up with some "righteous weed."

Originally Posted by snappyfingers

CLICKABLE LINK for City Council contact info


CLICKABLE LINK for City Attorney's Office contact info

[MariaJuanita]

The seat for District 2 is Vacant.
Would anyone receive these calls, letters or emails?

[cannadyke]

i sent an email to my councilman (labonge) yesterday, but i would like to send one to the city attorney as well. there is no email on the city attorney's web site, does anybody out there have it?

thanks!

nevermind, i just saw it posted in the CRC forum. for those that would like to send Trutanich an email:

Carmen.Trutanich@lacity.org