[VooDoo Chile]

So I finished my letter to the city council. Should I address it to the PLUM Committee, Ed Reyes, Dennis Zine, both of'em, the whole council, or simply e-mail it? How do y'all think it'd be most effective?

Maybe someone who's attending tomorrow's meeting will do me a huge favor and deliver it in person? I know this is way short notice, and I apologize for that. If anyone's interested in hand delivering it, please p.m. and I'll e-mail it to ya. Thanks all!

[Smilodon]

I used to send to just my Council Member, but now I send to all of them. One may ignore it, others may actually have their staff read it and report to them. I always preferred a shotgun approach.

[kennabis]

hand delivery is old school you get some strange looks at times

hold your head high!

right on voodoo!

[silvercloud]

Originally Posted by VooDoo Chile

So I finished my letter to the city council. Should I address it to the PLUM Committee, Ed Reyes, Dennis Zine, both of'em, the whole council, or simply e-mail it? How do y'all think it'd be most effective?

Maybe someone who's attending tomorrow's meeting will do me a huge favor and deliver it in person? I know this is way short notice, and I apologize for that. If anyone's interested in hand delivering it, please p.m. and I'll e-mail it to ya. Thanks all!

Since you hav taken initiative ,how about sharing your e-mail w/WTers ,giving pointers on your approach ?!? ~ thatis all

[kalikilla]

Why wouldnt you hand deliver it yourself? If you feel they will not read it. Why should they listen to an anonymous letter . . . . ? Did you put your info on the hedding? Print 1000 letters it might get your point accross . . . . good luck

[BrattonBasher]

Originally Posted by kalikilla

Why wouldnt you hand deliver it yourself? If you feel they will not read it. Why should they listen to an anonymous letter . . . . ? Did you put your info on the hedding? Print 1000 letters it might get your point accross . . . . good luck

VDC is a full time College student who can't attend the meeting. I submit my letters via email to all Councilpeople, but I honestly identify myself as a Santa Monica resident with a vested interest in this matter.

[VooDoo Chile]

Originally Posted by silvercloud

Since you hav taken initiative ,how about sharing your e-mail w/WTers ,giving pointers on your approach ?!? ~ thatis all

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!

[kusher]

nice. very very nice.

[superface13]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to VooDoo Chile again.

[resipsa]

Here's my letter, delivered today at the PLUM Meeting. I wish more people would write letters, you can fax them, email them or snail mail them.

September 28, 2009


To: Councilman Ed Reyes
PLUM Committee Chairman

Councilman Jose Huizar
Member PLUM Committee

Councilman Dennis Zine
Member PLUM Committee


RE: Constitutionally Impermissible Language In The Latest Medical Marijuana
Draft Ordinance

Gentlemen:

Several years ago, I stood before the full council and asked for a working group, which would help the city draft its Medical Marijuana Ordinance. Once the group was formed, I participated enthusiastically.

I was so impressed with my fellow members, particularly people like Don Duncan, that I was content to let my fellow members interact with you directly. They were conveying my sentiments and I saw no reason to take up your time with needless replication.

However, in both Chairman Reyes’ version of the ordinance and the new City Attorney’s version, there’s language that would rob citizens of basic constitutional rights, and put patients in grave danger merely because they must medicate. I’m writing to request this language be taken out of the final ordinance.

In a worst case scenario, this language might generate more lawsuits against the city (something I badly want to avoid) and would forever mark Los Angeles as the city which demonized the sick and the dying, forcing them to trade basic constitutional protections for the right to medicate.

I’m speaking, of course, of the requirement that dispensaries keep all contact and medical recommendations relating to their patients and patient cultivators on-site, and show that information to any city or police agencies who wish to stroll in and take a look.

Gentlemen, when you visit your doctors, your medical records and contact information are considered your private business. The same would hold true for any business records you kept. That’s the rule whether those records are stored at the doctor’s office, your chiropractor, your pharmacy, or someplace else.

People, including the police, are not allowed to just drop by and take a look, absent the constitutional requirement of a warrant.

Yet, both drafts of the ordinance require that dispensaries surrender this type of information on demand. Somehow, because I’m a medical marijuana patient, my constitutional right of a reasonable expectation of privacy disappears, while yours remain intact. Surely this cannot be right.

It’s easy enough for police to obtain a warrant, and a dispensary isn’t going to disappear during the time it would take to obtain a warrant. After all, a dispensary’s goal is to be in the same place and open for business every day. Why would it disappear?

Allowing Los Angeles Police Department employees to demand personal, medical and business records without a warrant requirement presents additional dangers to patients, because fourteen Los Angeles Police Officers are cross-sworn as federal agents.

Traditionally, cross-sworn officers in other jurisdictions have used this designation to pursue their opposition to Medical Marijuana, by walking cases over to the federal government when the city declined to prosecute. They’ve done this while wearing state uniforms, and while under a state mandate to uphold state law, including California’s Medical Marijuana laws.

This happened in San Francisco and it was a real mess. Attached please find an article about this situation. If for no other reason than to avoid such an embarrassing and expensive boondoggle, the City of Los Angeles should not force Medical Marijuana patients to give up basic constitutional protections.

Let the officers who feel abuses are taking place appear before a neutral magistrate and obtain a warrant as they always have. Obviously, police do need a way to identify Medical Marijuana grows so that they do not waste city resources investigating legal entities. Forcing dispensaries to disclose information about their patient-cultivators is a draconian solution to this problem, it violates basic constitutional rights and is so unnecessary.

Re-convene the working group, which has always included Los Angeles Police personnel, and let them find a way to provide the police with the information they need about Medical Marijuana grows, without putting the sick and dying in the position of having to give up constitutional protections in order to obtain their medicine.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I can be reached at ******* if you have any questions.

Sincerely,


************
Founding Member
The Working Group For The City of Los Angeles’ Medical Marijuana Ordinance

Encl: 1 Article excerpt, “Waiting To Exhale”


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Below is an excerpt from an article written by Ann Harrison for the S.F. Bay Guardian entitled: "Waiting to Exhale" The article appeared on June 8, 2006.

"People don't trust the government, because politicians act one way and police act another," medical cannabis patient Clark Sullivan told us. "There are good officers out there that respect the law, but there are cops who make their own guidelines."

Mixed messages
The risks involved in a case-by-case approach are clear to Stephanie Landa, Kevin Gage, and Thomas Kikuchi. In February 2002, they say, they attended a Medical Marijuana Task Force meeting with Halloran and Capt. Kevin Cashman, then head of the SFPD narcotics unit.

According to Landa, Cashman said at the meeting that the Board of Supervisors had designated San Francisco as a medical marijuana sanctuary and police wouldn't cooperate with federal law enforcement.

Landa told us Cashman explained that as long as they used licensed electricians, kept their medical marijuana garden within city limits, and sold only to medical marijuana dispensaries, they would have no trouble. She said Cashman presented them with a handout noting that there was no medical marijuana plant limit in San Francisco and told them if they had any burglaries, they should call the police.

Sullivan, who organized the meeting, supports Landa's account.

After more assurances from then-district attorney Terence Hallinan, Landa and her partners borrowed $250,000, moved from Los Angeles, secured a business license, and began creating a nonprofit medical cannabis collective. In April 2002 they rented a warehouse for an indoor garden at 560 Brannan St., less than three blocks from police headquarters, and began growing 40 strains of cannabis to treat different conditions.

"We wanted to be near them so they could protect us as promised," Landa told us.

Four months later a group of plainclothes San Francisco police officers burst into the warehouse, threw Landa and Gage to the ground, and pointed guns at their heads. Leading the raid was Halloran, whom Landa said denied ever having met her.

When Cashman arrived, Landa told us, he recognized her and ordered her handcuffs removed. They weren't arrested, but Cashman asked Landa and Gage to give statements and come back the next day.

When they returned, Landa said, more than 1,000 small marijuana plants were gone, $2,000 in cash was missing, and the entire growing facility had been heavily vandalized.

Two weeks later Landa, Gage, and Kikuchi were indicted on federal charges for growing more than 1,000 marijuana plants with intent to distribute.

Landa charges that when they couldn't make a state case, police simply turned over the evidence to federal authorities who weren't present at the raid; police dispute that characterization.

"The federal authorities were on the scene that day, and they adopted the case," Halloran told us.

He said a citizen complaint prompted him to investigate and secure a search warrant. Despite repeated requests, the SFPD wouldn't make Cashman available to set the record straight, and he has been transferred from his former post.

But Halloran told us Cashman never made the statements Landa claims he did. "At no time did we give assurances that someone who cultivated 1,500 plants two blocks from the Hall of Justice would not be prosecuted under state and federal law," said Halloran, who charges that the group didn't possess enough medical cannabis recommendations to prove they were growing for a large group of patients.

"They can possess marijuana if they possess a recommendation, and if they possess a recommendation, we said at that meeting that we handle all cases on a case-by-case basis."

Landa said the paperwork was forthcoming and they hadn't yet sold any cannabis. Nevertheless, federal prosecutor George Bevan threatened to put Landa in prison for life because of a prior heroin-smuggling charge 35 years earlier and proposed 10-year sentences for Kikuchi and Gage.

In a plea agreement written by Bevan, Landa said she and her partners weren't allowed to mention the roles of Halloran and Cashman in the case and were forced to sign away their right to an appeal. Bevan didn't return calls seeking comment.

Landa says 10 San Francisco city supervisors wrote letters to the judge on their behalf. But they were sentenced last summer to 37 to 41 months in federal prison. Gage and Kikichi are now eight months into their terms at a federal prison camp in Sheridan, Ore. Landa, who was given a delayed sentence because she and Kikichi have a child, will begin serving her 41 months in a maximum-security prison in about two years.

"When government officials gave us permission to do this, this was not in the plan," said Landa, who sobbed as she recounted the ordeal. "I can't figure out why they would tell us something and then come in and destroy it. It doesn't make sense."

[ShiningSkull]

Well done, VooDoo Chile! Thanks for writing it, girl. You achieved the perfect tone, I thought. Also, I'm sure you had other "homework" you could've been doing, so double thanks for spending your time on it.

Resipsa, your letter provides such illuminating background from your years of working with the Council on this issue. Thanks for sharing it.

[VooDoo Chile]

Originally Posted by ShiningSkull

Well done, VooDoo Chile! Thanks for writing it, girl. You achieved the perfect tone, I thought. Also, I'm sure you had other "homework" you could've been doing, so double thanks for spending your time on it.

Resipsa, your letter provides such illuminating background from your years of working with the Council on this issue. Thanks for sharing it.

Thanks for the support dude!

I e-mailed that letter to every councilmember individually. I was wondering if anybody knows Trutanich's e-mail. For some strange reason, I can't find it on the city's webpage.

Course I didn't have time to scour it either, so if anybody can post a link or send me in the right direction, I'd greatly appreciate it. Much love, all!