[halosmoker420]

When Californians voted to legitimize medical marijuana in 1996, they probably didn't realize they were stepping into a legal and regulatory minefield. Today, there are hundreds of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives in Los Angeles, which are caught in quasi-legal limbo -- barely regulated, largely untaxed, sanctioned by the state but subject to raids by federal drug agents. They're about a dozen years late, but some members of the City Council are finally aiming to do something about all that.

Councilman Dennis Zine has asked the city attorney's office to draft an ordinance regulating the design and operation of the L.A. establishments. Councilwoman Janice Hahn says the logical next step would be to impose a business tax on them, similar to that approved by Oakland voters last week. Both proposals have merit and could finally bring order to the industry.

The last time Los Angeles sought to regulate marijuana collectives was 2007. Recognizing that dispensaries were popping up across the city like -- pardon the expression -- weeds, the council imposed a moratorium on new ones until regulations were put in place. But operators could appeal to the City Council fora hardship exemption, and the council failed to act on those applications; although no exemptions were granted, the dispensaries were allowed to open. The result: There were 186 dispensaries registered with the city in 2007, and although the exact number operating today is unknown, police say there may be as many as 600. In some parts of the city they're more ubiquitous than Starbucks.

The council eliminated the moratorium's hardship exemption this month, and Zine's proposed ordinance would shut down dispensaries that opened during the moratorium. It would also restrict their location -- they couldn't operate within 1,000 feet of a school, park, library or other dispensary, for example -- and impose requirements such as posting regulations and permits, installing security cameras and maintaining a lobby between the entrance and the sales floor. The moratorium would sunset with passage of the ordinance, and pre-moratorium dispensaries in violation of the location restrictions would be able to apply for a hardship exemption and move to an approved location.

The issue of taxation is trickier and can't even be addressed until regulations such as those proposed by Zine are in effect. The state of California charges sales tax on medical marijuana, but the city does not impose a business tax on dispensaries because they are supposed to operate as nonprofits. As they did in Oakland, many operators here are lobbying for a business tax, believing that it would confer legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

We believe that marijuana has legitimate medical purposes, but we recognize that it's also an intoxicant best kept out of the hands of anyone simply looking for a high. If the city doesn't regulate its dispensaries, there's a chance the Drug Enforcement Administration will, with results many Californians would rather avoid.

Everyone who was part of the advocacy of the moratorium back in 07, new this was going to happen - eventually. This effects two groups of coops,and effects each one diffrently. First to coops that opened somewhere after august 2007 (not sure of the exact date.. some help here please). And meets the below criteria:

• Utilized hardship clause to gain licensing
• Did not have a licensed established facilty before your application date.

You coops dont have a prayer in hell. The city of los angeles looks at you folks as exploitive corporations that took advantage of a provision that intended to help the community of cooperatives and their patients. The hardship exemption / clause was instituted to be for existing coops only. 186 identified in the above los angeles times article to be exact.

Which brings me to the next group of coop operators: This section applies to you if :

Pre-moratorium established business permit for the cooperative.
ICO Compliant

Now that guidelines are being drawn out heres what to expect:

If you cannot conform to any and all of the future guidelines that are to be established... YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO RE-APPLY UNDER THE HARDSHIP EXEMPTION AND RE-LOCATE. THE HARDSHIP CLAUSE NO LONGER EXISTS. Expect the guidelines to mirror the same guidelines that los angeles county board of supervisors approved almost two years ago.

I asked Don Duncan about two years ago what way the council was leaning on regarding the operations of a coop relative to a school. At the time he said he had heard they were asking for the "adult entertainment standard" which is 500 ft. However, the above article reports 1000 ft.

Co-ops cannot exist within 1000 ft of any church, school, rehab facility, or daycare center. Also, expect for any new applicants after the guideline, and the moratorium is lifted to also need a conditional use permit to gain a new business license. Currently, the time in the county is 6-12 months for a CUP to be completed. A 7000.00 application fee, variance fees which may be applicable dependent on the property parcel, and don't forget you must have an existing lease and address to apply. That means that you'll have to carry the overhead on a lease for 6-12 to see the permit processs through. That's also why in the past i've said to stay out of the city of los angeles.

There will be many co-ops closing in the years to come, and new ones in their place. Good luck all, and 420 love. - H

[OCdirtbag]

thanks for the write up......exactly what I expected (and think should happen)....but we'll get the naive in here saying "it's not fair to the co-ops who filed a hardship"

[silvercloud]

Dollars to donuts says the CityCouncil will default all enforcement efforts ~ the State's getting ready to default period ~ close to 40% unemployment checks being delayed under our dysfunctional legislative ,**executive ,and *judicial branches

psst* there are over 200 state judges ,and a percentage are telecommuting to 'courts' !!! ~ if there is a ***BigChange due for Cali ,it's NOW
psst** the lame exec won't take a penny from the fed to help bailout
psst*** 12/21/12 doesn't seem so scary these daze

[Ingreenfields]

Originally Posted by halosmoker420

When Californians voted to legitimize medical marijuana in 1996, they probably didn't realize they were stepping into a legal and regulatory minefield. Today, there are hundreds of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives in Los Angeles, which are caught in quasi-legal limbo -- barely regulated, largely untaxed, sanctioned by the state but subject to raids by federal drug agents. They're about a dozen years late, but some members of the City Council are finally aiming to do something about all that.

Councilman Dennis Zine has asked the city attorney's office to draft an ordinance regulating the design and operation of the L.A. establishments. Councilwoman Janice Hahn says the logical next step would be to impose a business tax on them, similar to that approved by Oakland voters last week. Both proposals have merit and could finally bring order to the industry.

The last time Los Angeles sought to regulate marijuana collectives was 2007. Recognizing that dispensaries were popping up across the city like -- pardon the expression -- weeds, the council imposed a moratorium on new ones until regulations were put in place. But operators could appeal to the City Council fora hardship exemption, and the council failed to act on those applications; although no exemptions were granted, the dispensaries were allowed to open. The result: There were 186 dispensaries registered with the city in 2007, and although the exact number operating today is unknown, police say there may be as many as 600. In some parts of the city they're more ubiquitous than Starbucks.

The council eliminated the moratorium's hardship exemption this month, and Zine's proposed ordinance would shut down dispensaries that opened during the moratorium. It would also restrict their location -- they couldn't operate within 1,000 feet of a school, park, library or other dispensary, for example -- and impose requirements such as posting regulations and permits, installing security cameras and maintaining a lobby between the entrance and the sales floor. The moratorium would sunset with passage of the ordinance, and pre-moratorium dispensaries in violation of the location restrictions would be able to apply for a hardship exemption and move to an approved location.

The issue of taxation is trickier and can't even be addressed until regulations such as those proposed by Zine are in effect. The state of California charges sales tax on medical marijuana, but the city does not impose a business tax on dispensaries because they are supposed to operate as nonprofits. As they did in Oakland, many operators here are lobbying for a business tax, believing that it would confer legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

We believe that marijuana has legitimate medical purposes, but we recognize that it's also an intoxicant best kept out of the hands of anyone simply looking for a high. If the city doesn't regulate its dispensaries, there's a chance the Drug Enforcement Administration will, with results many Californians would rather avoid.

Everyone who was part of the advocacy of the moratorium back in 07, new this was going to happen - eventually. This effects two groups of coops,and effects each one diffrently. First to coops that opened somewhere after august 2007 (not sure of the exact date.. some help here please). And meets the below criteria:

• Utilized hardship clause to gain licensing
• Did not have a licensed established facilty before your application date.

You coops dont have a prayer in hell. The city of los angeles looks at you folks as exploitive corporations that took advantage of a provision that intended to help the community of cooperatives and their patients. The hardship exemption / clause was instituted to be for existing coops only. 186 identified in the above los angeles times article to be exact.

Which brings me to the next group of coop operators: This section applies to you if :

Pre-moratorium established business permit for the cooperative.
ICO Compliant

Now that guidelines are being drawn out heres what to expect:

If you cannot conform to any and all of the future guidelines that are to be established... YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO RE-APPLY UNDER THE HARDSHIP EXEMPTION AND RE-LOCATE. THE HARDSHIP CLAUSE NO LONGER EXISTS. Expect the guidelines to mirror the same guidelines that los angeles county board of supervisors approved almost two years ago.

I asked Don Duncan about two years ago what way the council was leaning on regarding the operations of a coop relative to a school. At the time he said he had heard they were asking for the "adult entertainment standard" which is 500 ft. However, the above article reports 1000 ft.

Co-ops cannot exist within 1000 ft of any church, school, rehab facility, or daycare center. Also, expect for any new applicants after the guideline, and the moratorium is lifted to also need a conditional use permit to gain a new business license. Currently, the time in the county is 6-12 months for a CUP to be completed. A 7000.00 application fee, variance fees which may be applicable dependent on the property parcel, and don't forget you must have an existing lease and address to apply. That means that you'll have to carry the overhead on a lease for 6-12 to see the permit processs through. That's also why in the past i've said to stay out of the city of los angeles.

There will be many co-ops closing in the years to come, and new ones in their place. Good luck all, and 420 love. - H

Very informative.

[VooDoo Chile]

We all knew this was coming.

That said, Zine's my rep and I ain't voting for him again. Not because of this proposal, but for the way he's handled the matter thus far. I suppose I could change my mind if he does something truly awesome between now and the next election. I ain't holding my breath, that's for sure.

At least Dennis is MMJ friendly. See what you get out of another "anti" in office. You should be glad he is in office or there wouldn't be any coops.

[Ingreenfields]

Originally Posted by Elroy Jetson

At least Dennis is MMJ friendly. See what you get out of another "anti" in office. You should be glad he is in office or there wouldn't be any coops.

Thats true we have always had support from Zine.

[halosmoker420]

Originally Posted by Ingreenfields

Thats true we have always had support from Zine.

This is true Zine has always been supportive. Along with Zev. In Zines defense, I think what he's pushing for is right... in fact it's about damn time. My hopes is that it will cause coop operators that close their doors under the new guidelines.. to open a co-op in a municipality that has local ordinances already in place. Progress in our community is a must. To folks who wine and complain about why there's so many coops in Los Angeles... Here's your answer.

Because there are few cities that allow coops to operate within their municipality. Most cities have moratoriums in place, or just outright dont allow permits. I don't know why ASA has'nt pushed their lawsuit forward that was filed against the city of Pasadena. They do not have a moratorium in place. They just simply refuse to allow for a permit to be issued. Bullshit. Of course the majority of co-ops that exist would exist in the city that had the simplist application process. Los Angeles.

[VooDoo Chile]

Okie Dokie, anybody mind posting a link about Zine supporting MMJ? Frankly I haven't come across a lot of press about him at all, much less stuff specifically pertaining to MMJ. I suppose I could google it myself. But if I owe him an apology, I will definitely make that public.

Don't get me wrong; I've no problem with the proposed regulations. They seem perfectly reasonable and they're par for the course. These types of regulations are also imposed upon other seemingly undesirable businesses such as adult entertainment shops. That's a tad insulting, but c'est la. Still, I know Zine was part of the kangaroo court that denied all those hardship applications. I didn't hear anything about him protesting the council's actions. Hence, my negative impression.

[halosmoker420]

Originally Posted by VooDoo Chile

Okie Dokie, anybody mind posting a link about Zine supporting MMJ? Frankly I haven't come across a lot of press about him at all, much less stuff specifically pertaining to MMJ. I suppose I could google it myself. But if I owe him an apology, I will definitely make that public.

Don't get me wrong; I've no problem with the proposed regulations. They seem perfectly reasonable and they're par for the course. These types of regulations are also imposed upon other seemingly undesirable businesses such as adult entertainment shops. That's a tad insulting, but c'est la. Still, I know Zine was part of the kangaroo court that denied all those hardship applications. I didn't hear anything about him protesting the council's actions. Hence, my negative impression.

Uh, it's funny that the adult entertainment standard is actually more foregiving when it coes to distance of operations relative to a school 500 ft. vs. 1000 ft. for coops. Yeah, it sucks ----fosho..... they also dont have to be away from rehab centers.. but they also cant be close to school, church, or parks. Hey, if you guys want to know what the new city ordinances will be like... here's a link to the los angeles county ordinance that will most likely reflect what the city will adopt

http://planning.lacounty.gov/view/me...ies_ordinance/
happy reading- H

[OCdirtbag]

if i'm not mistaken, the mmj ordinances will be same as alcohol

[The Natural Way Of L.A.]

It will be surprising for many when L.A. sees a day in the next 18months where 50-60 clubs operate with the full-cooperation of the city. Bet that doesn't seem like many, but it is. good bit of reportage from the first chap/chapette "In Green Frields", the permit fee will be a good deal higher than $7K.
rip rags and boil water.

[BrattonBasher]

Originally Posted by The Natural Way Of L.A.

It will be surprising for many when L.A. sees a day in the next 18months where 50-60 clubs operate with the full-cooperation of the city. Bet that doesn't seem like many, but it is. good bit of reportage from the first chap/chapette "In Green Frields", the permit fee will be a good deal higher than $7K.
rip rags and boil water.

LOL 50 or 60 MMJ clubs! Full cooperation of the City? What a freaking joke!!! This pre-ICO co-op is dreaming of a pot of gold... LOL

[wallawalla]

anybody remember this??

Originally Posted by wallawalla

I hope i do not get in trouble but here it is!!





OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO
CITY ATTORNEY
REPORT NO. R09-0031
JAI\! :1 6 2()09
REPORTRE:
REVISED DRAFT ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS
REGARDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA COLLECTIVES
The Honorable City Council
of the City of Los Angeles
Room 395, City Hall
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Council File No. 08-0923
Honorable Members:
Pursuant to the request of your Honorable Body, this office prepared and
transmitted for your action a draft ordinance, approved as to form and legality, that
would establish regulations regarding medical marijuana collectives (City Attorney
Report No. R08-0115).
We have prepared and transmit with this Report a revised draft ordinance,
approved as to form and legality, that includes introductory recitals and makes other
non-substantive wording changes. Copies of the revised draft ordinance were sent,
pursuant to Council Rule 38, to the Los Angeles Police Department, the Department of
Building and Safety, and the Office of the City Clerk with a request that all comments, if
any, be presented directly to your Honorable Body at the time this matter is considered.
AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
200 NORTH MAIN STREET" LOS ANGELES, CA 90012-4131. 213.485.6370 .. 213.847.8082 TOD
The Honorable City COUT._.•
of the City of Los Angeles
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact Deputy City Attorney Heather Aubry at
(213) 978-8393. She, or another member of this office, will be available when you
consider this matter to answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO, City Attorney
By ~~
DAVID MICHAELSON
Chief Assistant City Attorney
DM:HA:lee
Transmittal
ORDINANCE NO. _
An ordinance amending the Los Angeles Municipal Code to implement the
Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program Act.
WHEREAS, in 1996, California voters approved the Compassionate Use Act in
order to exempt seriously ill patients and their primary caregivers from criminal liability
for possession and cultivation of marijuana; .
WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles has a cornpelling interest in ensuring that
marijuana is not distributed in an illicit manner;
WHEREAS, the Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2003 provides for the
association of primary caregivers and qualified patients to cultivate marijuana;
WHEREAS, the regulation of these associations is essential to preserve the
peace and quiet of the neighborhoods in which these associations are established;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A new Article 5.1 is added to Chapter IV of the Los Angeles Municipal
Code to read:
Article 5.1. MEDICAL MARIJUANA
Sec. 45.19.6. Purposes and Intent.
The ordinance codified in this article, in compliance with California Health and
Safety Code Sections 11362.5, et seq., does not interfere with a patient's right to
medical marijuana, nor does it criminalize the possession or cultivation of medical
marijuana by specifically defined classifications of persons, pursuant to state law.
Under state law, only qualified patients, persons with identification cards and primary
caregivers may cultivate medical marijuana collectively. Medical marijuana collectives
shall otherwise comply with all provisions of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, including
the zoning ordinance, and the California Health and Safety Code. Nothing in this
ordinance purports to permit activities that are otherwise illegal under federal or state
law.
Sec. 45.19.6.1. Definitions.
The following phrases, when used in this chapter, shall be construed as defined
in California Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7:
1
"Person with an identification card;"
"Identification card;"
"Attending physician;"
"Primary caregiver;" and
"Qualified patient."
The following phrases, when used in this chapter, shall be construed as defined
below:
"Medical marijuana collective." Qualified patients, persons with identification
cards and designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with
identification cards who associate, as an incorporated or unincorporated association, at
a particular location within the City of Los Angeles in order to collectively or
cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, in strict accordance with
California Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.5, et seq.
Sec. 45.19.6.2. Registration. All medical marijuana collectives shall register
with the City Clerk by completing a registration form. Each member of the collective
must sign the form under penalty of perjury. The form shall, at a minimum, contain the
following information: the names of all members of the medical marijuana collective,
the location of the medical marijuana collective, a telephone number, the name and
address of a person authorized to accept service of process, and any other information
reasonably required on the form provided by the City Clerk to show that the medical
marijuana collective meets the requirements of this article. The collective shall also
provide proof that the owner of the property was given notice that the collective is filing
the registration form and also that the owner has received a copy of the information
contained in and with the form. The collective shall file a new registration form within
fifteen days of any changes in the information provided in the original form or any
change in status of compliance with the regulations set forth in Section 45.19.6.3. The
new form shall include the names of any new members and their signatures under
penalty of perjury that the information provided is true and correct. The City Clerk shall
provide proof of registration to the person authorized to accept service of process.
Sec. 45.19.6.3. Regulations.
The location at which a medical marijuana collective cultivates and distributes
medical marijuana must meet the following requirements:
(1) The location shall comply with the provisions of Chapters I and IX of
the Los Angeles Municipal Code;
(2) Exterior signage shall be limited to site addressing only;
(3) The location shall be monitored at all times by web-based closed
circuit television for security purposes. The camera and recording system must
2
be of adequate quality, color rendition and resolution to allow the ready
identification of any individual committing a crime anywhere on the site;
(4) The location shall have a centrally-monitored alarm system;
(5) Interior building lighting, exterior building lighting and parking area
lighting must be in compliance with Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections
93.0104, 93.0107 and 93.0117 and must be of sufficient foot-candles and color
rendition, so as to allow the ready identification of any individual committing a
crime on site at a distance of no less than forty feet (a distance that should allow
a person reasonable reaction time upon recognition of a viable threat);
(6) Windows and roof hatches shall be secured with bars on the windows
so as to prevent unauthorized entry, and be equipped with latches that may be
released quickly from the inside to allow exit in the event of emergency;
(7) Absolutely no cultivated marijuana or dried marijuana product may be
visible from the building exterior;
(8) No refinement of marijuana, or the preparation of marijuana products,
such as but not limited to hashish, "hash oil" or marijuana butter shall be allowed;
(9) No sale of marijuana or marijuana-enhanced or edible products shall
be allowed, nor shall the manufacturing of these products for sale be permitted;
(10) No persons under the age of eighteen shall be allowed on site,
unless the individual is a qualified patient or person with an identification card
and accompanied by his or her licensed attending physician, parent or
documented legal guardian;
(11) At any given time, no medical marijuana collective may possess
more than five pounds of dried marijuana or more than 100 plants. No medical
marijuana collective may possess marijuana that was not cultivated either on-site
or at a previous location, registered in accordance with Section 45.19.6.2, by that
medical marijuana collective;
(12) A sign shall be posted in a conspicuous location inside the structure
advising: "The diversion of marijuana for non-medical purposes is a violation of
State law. The use of marijuana may impair a person's ability to drive a motor
vehicle or operate heavy machinery. Loitering at the location of a medical
marijuana collective for an illegal purpose is prohibited by California Penal Code
Section 647(h)";
(13) No medical marijuana collective may provide medical marijuana to
any persons other than qualified patients or persons with identification cards and
designated primary caregivers who participate in the collective cultivation of
3
marijuana at that medical marijuana collective. No medical marijuana provided to
a primary caregiver may be supplied to any person(s) other than the primary
caregiver's qualified patient(s) or person(s) with an identification card;
(14) No cultivation of medical marijuana shall be visible with the naked
eye from any public or other private property. No outdoor cultivatlon shall occur
at a location unless it is secured from public access by means of a locked gate
and any other security measures necessary to prevent unauthorized entry;
(15) No medical marijuana collective shall be located within a 1,ODD-foot
radius of schools, playgrounds, parks, libraries, places of religious worship,
licensed child care facilities, licensed youth facilities, including youth hostels,
youth camps, and youth clubs, or other medical marijuana collective(s);
(16) No medical marijuana collective shall cause or permit the
establishment or maintenance of the sale or dispensing of alcoholic
beverages for consumption on the premises or off-site of the premises;
(17) No dried medical marijuana shall be stored in structures without at
least four walls and a roof, or stored in an unlocked vault or safe, or other
unsecured storage structure; nor shall any dried medical marijuana be stored in a
safe or vault that is not bolted to the floor or structure of the facility; and
(18) Medical marijuana cultivated at registered medical marijuana
collectives may not be consumed on-site, in the parking areas, or in those areas
already restricted by the California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.79.
Sec. 45.19.6.4. Exemptions.
(1) The prohibition in Section 45.19.6.3 (8) shall not apply to a qualified patient
or a person with an identification card who resides at the location of the medical
marijuana collective with respect to cooking, refining or otherwise preparing dried
marijuana cultivated at the location for his or her own medical use, in accordance with
the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5, et seq;
(2) The prohibition in Section 45.19.6.3 (8) shall not apply to a primary caregiver
who resides at the medical marijuana collective with respect to cooking, refining or
otherwise preparing dried marijuana CUltivated at the location for delivery to and medical
use by the qualified patient(s) or person(s) with an identification card for whom he or
she serves as primary caregiver;
(3) The prohibition in Section 45.19.6.3 (18) shall not apply to a qualified patient
or a person with an identification card who resides at the location of the medical
marijuana collective with respect to use of marijuana for his or her own medical
purposes;
4
(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize the chemical extraction
of marijuana resin or production of concentrated cannabis in violation of California
Health and Safety Code section 11379.6.
Sec. 45.19.6.5 Maintenance of Records.
Medical marijuana collectives shall maintain records reflecting: (1) the full name,
address, and telephone number(s) of the owner or lessee of the property; (2) the full
name, address, and telephone number(s) of all qualified patients and persons with
identification cards and/or primary caregivers who participate in the collective
cultivation; (3) the full name, address, and telephone number(s) of all qualified patients
and persons with identification cards to whom the collective provides medical marijuana;
(4) the designation, by qualified patient(s) and person(s) with identification cards, of any
and all primary caregivers who participate in the collective cultivation; (5) the amount of
compensation, if any, for specified cultivation-related services received by any primary
caregiver in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 11362.765, and; (6) proof
of registration with the City Clerk in conformance with section 45.19.6.2.
Sec. 45.19.6.6. Inspection Authority.
The Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety and the Los Angeles Police
Department may inspect every medical marijuana collective location at any reasonable
time to ensure compliance with the provisions of this article and both Departments,
within their respective jurisdictions, are authorized to enforce the provisions of this
article.
Sec. 45.19.6.7. Existing "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries".
Any "Medical Marijuana Dispensary", as that term is defined in the Interim
Control Ordinance (Ord. No. 179,027), must cease operation unless and until such
location is in compliance with this Article.
5
Sec. 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and have it
published in accordance with Council policy, either in a daily newspaper circulated
in the City of Los Angeles or by posting for ten days in three public places in the City of
Los Angeles: one copy on the bulletin board located at the Main Street entrance to the
Los Angeles City Hall; one copy on the bulletin board located at the Main Street
entrance to the Los Angeles City Hall East; and one copy on the bulletin board located
at the Temple Street entrance to the Los Angeles County Hall of Records.
I hereby certify that this ordinance was passed by the Council of the City of
Los Angeles, at its meeting of _
KAREN E. KALFAYAN, City Clerk
By ~~
Deputy
Approved _
Mayor
Approved as to Form and Legality
ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO, City Attorney
BY~;;~;;~~~~. RICHARD H. LLEWELLYN, J
Chief Deputy City Attorney
Date _(->..I_7..._&_! 0-'-7 _
File No. _
M:\PGEN\PGEN\HEATHER AUBRy\Ordinances\medical marijuana ord draft 1-26·09-FINAL.doc
6

[BrattonBasher]

I have a hard time believeing that edibles will be outlawed. What a literal slap in the face to chemo patients!

[joe32blow]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,5752313.story

It sounds like more MMJ bashing from the local media. The LA times
is owned by some powerful interests.

I for one hope that the city council fails in their efforts.

[BrattonBasher]

Originally Posted by joe32blow

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,5752313.story

It sounds like more MMJ bashing from the local media. The LA times
is owned by some powerful interests.

I for one hope that the city council fails in their efforts.

The L.A. Times has consistently supported MMJ in editorials. This one simply states the obvious: that the City Council needs to act! LOL Are you truly calling out conspiracy? Those "powerful interests" are commonly referred to as stockholders.

[halosmoker420]

BB is right, the LA Times has consistently covered MMJ issues with favorable light to our cause - as er uhm, journalisticly nuetral as possibe - so it seems. As far as city council failing... no way, it's imperative that regulations come into order as soon as possible. What the article says about co-ops having little regulatory balances in place on a municipal level is correct. Our industry for the most part has been left alone regarding regulatory efforts. I personally would love to see the department of agriculture become more pro-active in our county like they do in Mendo/ Humboldt County. Zip tie program here in los angeles county would be awesome. In addition, weights and measure certification on scales would be nice. AHIMA regulations for HIPPA compliance issues would also be in the best intrest of patients. MORE REGULATIONS ARE NEEDED. Good Luck LA CITY! When things are left un-checked you end up with more entities then what is needed in the city, co-ops located too close in proximity to schools. As far as being to close to churches and rehab centers - well, I think that should be fine. It's just the children that we need to be sensitive to. Churchgoers and drug addicts are grown folks and could make their own choice. - Peace all

[BrattonBasher]

Originally Posted by halosmoker420

BB is right, the LA Times has consistently covered MMJ issues with favorable light to our cause - as er uhm, journalisticly nuetral as possibe - so it seems. As far as city council failing... no way, it's imperative that regulations come into order as soon as possible. What the article says about co-ops having little regulatory balances in place on a municipal level is correct. Our industry for the most part has been left alone regarding regulatory efforts. I personally would love to see the department of agriculture become more pro-active in our county like they do in Mendo/ Humboldt County. Zip tie program here in los angeles county would be awesome. In addition, weights and measure certification on scales would be nice. AHIMA regulations for HIPPA compliance issues would also be in the best intrest of patients. MORE REGULATIONS ARE NEEDED. Good Luck LA CITY! When things are left un-checked you end up with more entities then what is needed in the city, co-ops located too close in proximity to schools. As far as being to close to churches and rehab centers - well, I think that should be fine. It's just the children that we need to be sensitive to. Churchgoers and drug addicts are grown folks and could make their own choice. - Peace all

Right On! Many good points made. Those weights and measures folks need to be involved. I have seen them in action at farmers markets.

[joe32blow]

I disagree that more regulation is needed. While the LA times may be neutral on MMJ, they have certainly joined in the condemnation of the coops in LA along with the
rest of the local media (LA weekly included).

Regulation gets written by powerful interests that do it out of their own self interest. There is no evidence that more regulation will result in improving the situation for
patients. It's more likely going to make it worse.

[halosmoker420]

Originally Posted by BrattonBasher

I have a hard time believeing that edibles will be outlawed. What a literal slap in the face to chemo patients!

The only way edibles could be outlawed is if they don't comply to health code applications that apply to all edible items. - Non- medicated as well as medicated. If these items are requested to meet health code requirements intended to protect the health and welfare of the community, I don't see why MMJ edibles items should be exempt from them. Just keeping us healthy.

[halosmoker420]

Originally Posted by joe32blow

I disagree that more regulation is needed. While the LA times may be neutral on MMJ, they have certainly joined in the condemnation of the coops in LA along with the
rest of the local media (LA weekly included).

Regulation gets written by powerful interests that do it out of their own self interest. There is no evidence that more regulation will result in improving the situation for
patients. It's more likely going to make it worse.

okie dokie... what do you mean exactly by "their own self interest", and "make it worse"? ... how so? More regulations will result in longer standing collective / cooperatives for our community. In that if coops comply with regulations set fourth, then the city and municipality is less likely to shut it down. More regulations are good.

[joe32blow]

Originally Posted by halosmoker420

okie dokie... what do you mean exactly by "their own self interest", and "make it worse"? ... how so? More regulations will result in longer standing collective / cooperatives for our community. In that if coops comply with regulations set fourth, then the city and municipality is less likely to shut it down. More regulations are good.

Perhaps you are too young to remember the soviet union where regulations
were so thick that it was difficult to get food?

Self interest? Big Pharma for one. They don't want MMJ. Look for
them to fund politicians that write regulations that will make it
more difficult to have access.

Another one is the big Wal Mart coop chains that will destroy the
local strains and the service that you now have. The result will be less
exotic strains to choose from and worse service.

Then there's always the prison industrial complex and organized
crime which would rather have people buy on the black market. There's
no way that regulation influenced by them is going to be benificial.

Soviet Union?
Wal Mart?

Red herrings for everyone!!

[joe32blow]

Originally Posted by Elroy Jetson

Soviet Union?
Wal Mart?

Red herrings for everyone!!

A red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert
an argument. I am doing nothing of the sort. Rather, I am pointing out
what you get when you have regulation in the retail marketplace.