L.A. Panels Reject Ban On Medical Marijuana Sales

L.A.'s dispensaries remain open, for now. (Photo by digitalshay)

Ignoring the advice of anti-pot City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, two Los Angeles City Council committees today rejected a proposed ban on sales of medical marijuana.

​Anti-pot zealots within L.A. city government had coordinated an 18-month assault on the dispensaries, with headline-grabbing pronouncements from media hogs Trutanich and Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley dominating coverage of the issue in recent weeks.

Both Trutanich and Cooley have been widely quoted in the press as claiming that most of the dispensaries are operating in violation of state law. Cooley's recent declaration that "approximately zero" of the dispensaries were operating legally sent chills and outrage through the medical marijuana community, seeming to echo San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis' statement that there are "no such things" as legal dispensaries.

The planned finalé, however, doesn't seem to be going according to script. This meeting was widely seen in the marijuana community as an attempt to deliver a coup de grace to the burgeoning dispensary scene in Los Angeles, but it didn't turn out that way.

Medical marijuana patients and providers turned out in large numbers for the meeting, a joint session of the city council's Public Safety and Planning and Land Use committees. Dozens of dispensary owners and pot users argued that the ban would simply put an end to safe access to marijuana for city patients. Don Duncan, California director for patient advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA), said of the proposed ban, "It simply won't work."

Council members on both committees wrestled with the idea of ignoring the opinion of the city's top prosecutor. But after four hours of a contentious and heated hearing, council members had heard more than enough.

"When can we finally stop the merry-go-round?" asked Councilman Dennis Zine, who has been involved with the dispensary issue since 2005. Zine proposed an alternate provision allowing dispensaries to accept cash for marijuana as long as they comply with state law.

A complete sales ban would have taken Los Angeles into legally perilous and untested territory. Both ASA and a group called the Union of Medical Marijuana Patients threatened to sue the city if the council adopted the ban.

Chief Deputy City Attorney William Carter, sent by Trutanich to do the dirty work of arguing before a largely hostile audience that state law and state court decisions mean collectives cannot lawfully sell pot, found his remonstrations falling upon deaf ears despite his best attempts to whip up some anti-weed hysteria.

Councilman Zine, by way of contrast, sounded like the voice of reason, urging the council to adopt a less authoritarian interpretation of the law that would not conflict with how dispensaries operate in Los Angeles and in much of California.

A disappointed David Berger, special assistant to Trutanich, grudgingly allowed that it is up to the city council to decide whether to heed the advice of the city attorney's office. "Our duty is to advise them on what the law allows for and not to go on a whim. They decided to go a different way."

The unyielding position of Trutanich and his minions didn't go unnoticed, or unremarked upon, by Councilman Ed Reyes. "I think they are very, very narrow in that they're taking their prosecutorial perspective," an annoyed Reyes said.

"We need something on the books now. There is no reason we should delay, Reyes said. The full city council is expected take up the long-delayed dispensary regulations as soon as Wednesday.

"My primary concern is making sure we allow enough flexibility so that people who are sick have access, that we do not create an environment where the only function of the ordinance will be to eradicate them all," Reyes said a day before the meeting. "I don't think it's fair or humane to people who are really sick who need it."

Councilman Paul Koretz, former mayor of West Hollywood, said the regulations backed by  by the City Attorney's Office are "unworkable.''

"I think we have one goal here, which is to provide access but at the same time eliminate the problems that medical marijuana dispensaries have been causing," Koretz said. And to do that, I would ask colleagues why we have to take the hardest-ass approach to the law that we could, rather than trying to take the approach that will make this as practical as possible.'' 

A crowd of about 400 people filled the main council chamber for the hearing, with the proceedings often becoming raucous. Most of the speakers were medical marijuana supporters, along with a sprinkling of community activists and conservatives who supported the ban.

Marijuana supporters argued that dispensaries should be regulated, not banned, with a reduction in the number of shops and a crackdown on operations that become a public nuisance.

The proposed ordinance would have "effectively shut down the city's medical marijuana distribution system by banning all sales of marijuana and sharply curtailing collectives' ability to grow and obtain medicine,'' according to the California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML).

"Los Angeles would be foolish to pass this unworkable, ill-conceived ordinance," said California NORML coordinator Dale Gieringer before the meeting. "The city would be better advised to adopt of system of licensed regulation and taxes, which has proven successful elsewhere in the state."

NORML estimates that closing most or all dispensaries would cost Los Angeles between $36 million and $74 million in lost sales taxes, and the loss of jobs to 6,500 dispensary employees.

"Neither the Los Angeles City Attorney nor the City Council has the right to ban activity that is protected under state law," said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford. "Medical marijuana sales have been deemed legal by the state legislature, the courts, and the California Attorney General."

The number of dispensaries ballooned from only four in 2005, when the city council first began to take notice, to more than a thousand, the city attorney's office estimates. In 2007, when Los Angeles adopted a dispensary moratorium, 186 pot shops were in business. Hundreds more soon slipped through a boilerplate hardship exemption, and the rush was on.

A recent poll showed that more than three-quarters of Los Angeles County residents favored regulation, rather than elimination, of the dispensaries.

Californians legalized medical marijuana with Proposition 215 in 1996. The law was expanded with SB 420 in 2003, allowing collectives to grow the herb.

According to guidelines issued by Attorney General Jerry Brown (PDF), medical marijuana providers are supposed to operate as non-profits.

Chronic City: L.A. Panels Reject Ban On Medical Marijuana Sales

Big Brother Watching? Pot Dispensaries Appeal Court Order To Turn Over Client Names

Watching you? (Photo by LiveBloid, Wikimedia Commons)

By Steve Elliott in Chronic City
​
Five medical marijuana dispensaries in Dana Point, Calif., are appealing an Orange County Superior Court ruling ordering them to turn over records -- including client lists -- to the city as part of an investigation into dispensary operations.

"I think everyone kind of had the same idea about appealing the order for the reason of protecting third-party names and some of the privileged items that we believe shouldn't be disclosed," attorney Lee Petros, representing the Point Alternative Care dispensary, told the Orange County Register.

All five pot dispensaries in Dana Point must hand over their records to the city by Dec. 7, according to a ruling by Judge Glenda Sanders. Sanders also ordered the disclosure of member names to be limited to city attorneys, a financial consultant retained for advice in the investigation, and the assistant city manager, "who will oversee and assist the consultant in his analysis," according to the Register.

Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project hopes the appeal succeeds. "For city officials to be allowed to receive confidential medical information for what appears to be a fishing expedition would be an extremely dangerous precedent," Mirken told me. "It would be nice if patients could have complete trust in their local officials, but they don't, and for good reason."

Read the rest at Chronic City in the SF Weekly blog, "The Snitch": Chronic City: Pot Dispensaries Appeal Order To Turn Over Client Names

Maine Votes “Yes” On Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

This scene, from a Sacramento, CA dispensary, is coming to Maine soon. (Photo: Sacramento Bee)

Becomes 3rd State to License Medical Marijuana Providers; Vote Seen as Latest Advance Spurred by Obama Policy

In a landmark vote, Maine voters today approved Question 5, making the state the third in the country to license nonprofit organizations to provide medical marijuana to qualified patients and the first ever to do so by a vote of the people. With 49 percent of the vote tallied, the measure was cruising to an easy win with 60.2 percent voting “yes” and 39.8 percent voting “no.”

Under the measure, the state will license nonprofit organizations to provide medical marijuana to qualified patients and set rules for their operation. While 13 states permit medical use of marijuana, only Rhode Island and New Mexico have similar dispensary provisions, both of which were adopted by the states’ legislatures. Maine’s original medical marijuana law was passed in 1999.

“This is a dramatic step forward, the first time that any state’s voters have authorized the state government to license medical marijuana dispensaries,” said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C., which drafted the initiative and provided start-up funding for the campaign. “Coming a decade after passage of Maine’s original marijuana law, this is a huge sign that voters are comfortable with these laws, and also a sign that the recent change of policy from the Obama administration is having a major impact.”  

In October, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a formal policy indicating that federal prosecutors should not prosecute medical marijuana activities authorized by state law.

Question 5 also expands the list of medical conditions qualifying for protection under Maine’s law to include several conditions that are included in most other medical marijuana states, including intractable pain, agitation of Alzheimer’s disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (“Lou Gehrig’s disease”).

A Maine law approved in 1999 by public referendum allowed an individual suffering from one of four specific conditions to grow, possess and use small amounts of marijuana if a physician determines the effect of the drug may be beneficial.

Campaign manager Jonathan Leavitt of the organization Maine Citizens for Patient Rights told the Bangor Daily News earlier Tuesday evening that he was confident Mainers would approve the measure.

“This confirms what our polling has told us all along,” he said. Leavitt said he expected some advantage in the southern part of the state, but “only a small percentage.”

Leavitt acknowledged that his group had run a low-profile campaign. “The credibility of this issue is so strong, we didn’t need to convince anyone that this was the right thing to do,” Leavitt said.

Big Surprise: Pot-Hating Cops Whine About Outcome

Question 5 passed despite being opposed by the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Maine Office of Substance Abuse, the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency and the Maine Prosecutors Association.

As usual, there was some sour-grapes whining from pot-phobic cops. Kennebec County District Attorney Evert Fowle, who also is president of the Maine Prosecutors Association, told the Bangor Daily News Tuesday night the measure would prove difficult to enforce because of its complexity and breadth.

“It’s a very poor law,” he said. “This was written by self-proclaimed marijuana activists. … The ultimate goal of the people behind this law is to legalize marijuana.”

Regardless, he added, “We’ll do our best to make this law work and respect the will of the voters.”

Make sure you do that, Evert.

Marijuana Policy Project

With more than 29,000 members and 100,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP believes that the best way to minimize the harm associated with marijuana is to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. For more information, please visit MarijuanaPolicy.Org

'Truth In Trials' Bill Would Lift Ban On Medical Marijuana Evidence In Federal Court

Photo by digitalshay

By Steve Elliott in Chronic City

​U.S. Representative Sam Farr (D-CA) and more than 20 bipartisan co-sponsors introduced legislation Tuesday that would allow defendants in medical marijuana cases the ability to use medical evidence at trial, a right they currently do not have.

Due to the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, the government has the discretion to enforce federal marijuana laws even in medical marijuana states. The Raich ruling also allows federal prosecutors to conveniently exclude evidence of medical use or state law compliance in federal trials, all but guaranteeing convictions of medical marijuana patients and providers.

Last week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder formalized a departure from Bush Administration policy when he issued new guidelines to federal prosecutors discouraging them from prosecuting cases in which patients and providers are "in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws."

Unfortunately, the new DOJ guidelines neither direct U.S. Attorneys to abandon the more than two-dozen pending federal medical marijuana cases, nor allow defendants the ability to use medical evidence to exonerate themselves.

​"This is a common-sense bill that will help stop the waste of law enforcement and judicial resources that have been spent prosecuting individuals who are following state law," Farr said Tuesday. "We need strict drug laws, but we also need to apply a little common sense to how they're enforced. This legislation is about treating defendants in cases involving medical marijuana fairly, plain and simple."

Read the rest at Chronic City in the SF Weekly blog, "The Snitch": Chronic City: 'Truth In Trials' Bill Would Lift Ban On Medical Marijuana Evidence In Federal Court

Feds Lighten Up On Medical Marijuana Just As L.A. Tightens The Screws

Let my people grow.

By Steve Elliott in Chronic City

​In a stunning bit of role reversal, law enforcement officials in dispensary-heavy Los Angeles County are gearing up for a massive mobilization against hundreds of pot shops even while the Obama administration backs away from the federal government's traditional role as marijuana enforcer in the states where medical pot is legal.

Today, the administration sent new, more relaxed medical marijuana guidelines to federal prosecutors in the 14 states which have legalized weed for patients. Under the new policy, the federal government will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws.

While keeping a promise President Barack Obama made on the campaign trail in 2008 and since affirmed by Attorney General Eric Holder, the new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration line, which continued to enforce harsh, Nixon-era federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.

Read the rest at Chronic City in the SF Weekly blog, "The Snitch": Chronic City: Feds Lighten Up On Medical Marijuana Just As L.A. Tightens Screws | Digg story

This Could Get Ugly: Anti-Marijuana Machismo Is Latest California Cop Fad

We got their Zig Zags, too! (Photo: policeone.com)

By Steve Elliott in Chronic City

Pot-phobic law enforcement officers in California are trying out an unsettling new tactic. It's the latest iteration of their continued hissy fit about what should have been a settled issue for 13 years now (since Californians voted for Proposition 215, legalizing medical use of marijuana with a doctor's recommendation).

Many cops, still pissed off and in deep denial that medical pot is legal in the Golden State, are desperately clinging to the federal prohibition of marijuana for threadbare justification of their irrational hatred of pot and its users.

This particularly unattractive phenomenon of "let's ignore the voters" increasingly involves strutting, macho displays of contempt for the law -- incredibly enough, by the cops themselves.

​​Even as the Long Beach City Council tried to do something constructive by debating the regulation of businesses that provide medical marijuana to patients under the auspices of Prop 215 and SB 420 (the Medical Marijuana Program Act, passed by the Legislature six years ago to clarify and expand the intent of the law), City Prosecutor Tom Reeves wrote an op-ed piece "that essentially amounts to kicking in the door with the guns blazing," according to the Long Beach Post.

Read the rest at Chronic City in the SF Weekly blog, "The Snitch": Chronic City: This Could Get Ugly -- Anti-Marijuana Machismo Is Latest California Cop Fad | Digg story