LBPOST.com: Discussing Equal Benefits And Medical Marijuana

Saturday, March 13, 2010 | Home

Discussing Equal Benefits And Medical Marijuana

by John Greet | Our Liberty | 10.26.09 |

| Text Size:

As Mr. Eakins has recently reported in the Press-Telegram, the esteemed members of our City Council�s Economic Development and Finance Committee (EDFC) will be discussing two issues today that are of great interest to many in our community and have direct and indirect bearing upon our personal and collective liberty.

1st District Councilmember Robert Garcia proposes that the City adopt an Equal Benefits Ordinance (EBO) that would �(require) contractors doing business with the City demonstrate they provide benefits for registered domestic partners that are equal to those provided by married spouses�. 7th District Councilwoman Tonia Reyes-Uranga asks that the Council �Direct the City Manager and request the City Attorney and City Prosecutor to develop specific standards and criteria relating to the licensing of medical marijuana dispensaries under the provisions of Title 5 of the Long Beach Municipal Code pertaining to the regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions�.

8th District Councilwoman Rae Gabelich, 3rd District Councilman Gary DeLong and 7th District Councilwoman Tonia Reyes-Uranga will be revisiting the discussion on both of these public policy proposals at 5:30 this afternoon in the Council Chamber at City Hall. I strongly encourage our readers to attend and participate if possible.

I�ve previously offered a column on the EBO proposal here and have commented extensively on our community�s Medical Marijuana challenge in LBPOST.com colleague Greggory Moore�s excellent column here and elsewhere, but I think it�s important to continue to discuss both of these as they make their methodical way through our local legislative process.

Equal Benefits Ordinances

In my opinion, the true intent of EBO�s is to circumvent the intent of Proposition 8; the ill-advised legislation of last year that amended our State Constitution to prohibit gay marriage in California. But like it or not -and I didn�t and still don�t- Prop. 8 passed and because of it an entire class of committed and consenting adults (�LGBT�s�) are now deprived of the State-recognized marital benefits that another class of committed and consenting adults (�Straights�) are allowed to enjoy. In my view, Prop 8 was patently discriminatory and I greatly hope we overturn or reverse it as soon as possible.

Although EBO�s only address registered domestic partnership, had Prop 8 not passed, EBO�s would be largely unnecessary, since I believe the vast majority of committed and consenting gay couples would much prefer the full legal status of marriage to the �separate but equal� status of registered domestic partnership. When I made this assertion during a �Beer & Politics� public forum on this topic, Councilmember Garcia, who also attended spoke to the topic, readily agreed.

If the intent of Prop 8 is to deny rights and privileges to committed gay couples then the intent of EBO�s is to deny rights and privileges to contractors who are operating in full compliance with our current and duly-enacted local, State and federal laws.

Put simply, an EBO is just as discriminatory in one way as Prop 8 was in another. Both seek to employ the law to deprive people of government-extended rights and privileges and both are wrong.

The right way to correct the error we made through Prop 8 is to repeal Prop 8, not to pass subservient legislation that conflict with the intent of Prop 8.

As a City, we borrow a lot of trouble with the passage of an EBO: We unnecessarily expose ourselves to costly litigation. Many jurisdictions that have passed EBO�s have been challenged in Court. Some of these jurisdictions have prevailed and some have not but defending ourselves against such litigation will be very costly either way. Through an EBO we enact legislation that prevents companies that are operating lawfully from doing business with the City even though they may meet our current �lowest responsible bidder� standard for awarding City contracts. This means that even though a given bid might actually save our City -and therefore local taxpayers- money, we will not award a contract to that bidder because they do not offer benefits parity to their registered domestic partners�something no local State or federal law requires them to do.

I think there are several better options for addressing this challenge at the local level: We could offer preference points through our City�s existing Diversity Outreach Program just as we currently offer to local businesses. Or we, as a City, could do nothing but continue to adhere to our own current, more fiscally responsible �lowest responsible bidder� standard. Bidders that offer RDP benefits parity simply need to assure that their bids are always the lowest responsible bids. The City will then award the contract accordingly and our preference to only do business with contractors that offer RDP benefits parity is met while maintaining the more fiscally conservative integrity of our bidding process.

Medical Marijuana

The City has been wrestling with the medpot issue for at least two years that I know of. To date our Council has done little but talk about it and otherwise turn a blind eye to the subsequent explosion of medpot Cooperatives, Collectives and Dispensaries throughout our community. To date, none of these operations is licensed to operate in our City while all other lawful businesses have been required to be. None of them have been inspected by public health or safety personnel while all other lawful businesses have been required to be. None are paying fees or taxes while all other lawful businesses in our city have been required to.

In short, all of these Cooperatives, Collectives and Dispensaries have been operating in direct defiance of our City�s business licensing law and they have, to date, been allowed to do so by the very people we have elected to represent us and in whom we have invested the authority to assure that our City�s laws are fully and fairly enforced.

Some, like my LBPOST.com colleague Greggory Moore, have argued that these operations are unlicensed only because the City has so far refused to issue the licenses, as if this somehow excuses them. Try that argument with a cop sometime�

Unlicensed Driver: �Gee officer, I applied to the State for a driver license and they wouldn�t issue me one but I decided to drive anyway so, really, it�s the State�s fault�

Officer: �Sign here, sir. Press hard, three copies and please collect your personal items, I�ll be impounding your car as well�

The bottom line is that the City has declined to issue licenses to these sorts of operations and, so, when any of them operated in our City anyway, they chose to do so *unlawfully*. In a well-ordered and civil society, there must exist fair and reasonable consequences for unlawful behavior.

This agenda item is our City�s attempt to finally get its legislative and regulatory act together on this important public policy challenge.

In my opinion, the best way to do that is to clean the proverbial slate: To start fresh and to manage this correctly from the beginning. The City must, therefore, close down every single medpot Collective, Cooperative and Dispensary in the city. I know this isn�t going to be a popular approach, but please hear me out.

The City can lawfully do this because none of these businesses are properly licensed. This comprehensive closure is necessary because there is just no fair and equal way to determine which of them should be allowed to remain open and which should not.

None of them has been properly inspected and we cannot allow any of them to continue to operate under those circumstances, not and properly meet our public policy mandate to assure public health and safety within our jurisdiction. None of them should be allowed to continue to operate, even while awaiting inspection, because this, in essence, rewards them for conducting operations in defiance of our business licensing laws to begin with. Being closed down, even temporarily, must be seen as a fair and just consequence for violating our City�s laws.

While all of these unlawful operations are being closed our elected officials must craft the necessary legislation to properly, fairly, effectively and efficiently regulate these types of operations. Our elected and appointed City officials must decide how these businesses are going to be inspected, by whom and according to what standards and they must determine how many such businesses are going to be allowed to operate in our city and where. I suggest no more than three per Council District.

Once all of the appropriate legislation, policies and procedures are in place, then and only then should Co-ops and Collectives (not Dispensaries) be allowed to apply for and be issued business licenses in our City. Because of the nature of these businesses, their regulation and control must be closely monitored and strictly enforced within our jurisdiction and the only way to do that is to start from scratch and do it correctly from the beginning.

Marijuana is considered a mild hallucinogen. Because of this I just don�t see it ever being legalized outright. Alcohol, while having similar effects, is considered a mild CNS Depressant, rather than a hallucinogen, so arguments that the two substances should be regulated in the same manner are, to me, erroneous.

But while our local regulatory efforts are ongoing we must also re-double our efforts to lobby our Federal Government to transfer Marijuana from Federal Drug Schedule 1. Accomplishing this will then permit State licensed medical professionals to legally *prescribe* marijuana to their legitimate patients (rather than simply �recommend� it as is currently the case) and will permit State licensed pharmacies to legally dispense it.

Until the Fed gets its own act together on this, however, Long Beach should do what it can under existing law to better insure public health and safety while trying to meet the needs of legitimate medpot patients within our jurisdiction.

I very much welcome your questions and your comments!

Disclosure: The LBPOST.com has sponsorship relationships with medical marijuana dispensaries.

Click here to read our policy on covering the Long Beach City Council.

Comments

Click Here to Leave a Comment

John M. Fentis
"In a well ordered and civil society, there must exist fair and reasonable consequences for unlawful behavior"...Well, put Mr. Greet and I wholeheartedly agree...do we now apply the logic of that well-reasoned argument to the gentleman who took a bulldozer to the property without a grading permit..This is an issue that Mr. Reeves should address in his upcoming debate. Do we enforce the laws that only give us positive press or do we enforce the laws across the board in a fair and consistent manner without regard to political motivations? I know that I'm addressing an issue that is not relevant to the particular article written by Mr. Greet...but it certainly seems as though an answer to the non-prosecution of Mr. Hitchcock might be appropriate so that the citizens of Long Beach know that ALL of their laws are being enforced equally and not just the ones that are used for political election purposes

criss
there are now storefronts showing up in neighborhoods where there is a concern about the closeness to schools, parks and homes. One is supposedly opening at Carson/Bellflower (Village Shops) and people are really not happy having this in their neighborhood. Neighborhoods should have some input in this as they are stakeholders and are affected.

Michael
If every pot dispensary was replaced with a store selling American flags and Christian religious items, and they ignored every law, rule, and regulation on the books, if the city tried to do anything about it, the pot whiners would be screaming for the stores to be left alone. This is all about the culture wars, bigotry, and a gross misconception of who medpot, and pot in general, is used by. It's a non-issue to people who have the info.

Kevin
Marijuana and Alcohol are both drugs that affect judgment and both impair decisions. The idea that Alcohol is different and should not be compared to Marijuana because of it’s technical classification is a ridiculous one. If that’s your argument, you should outlaw and arrest the all pharmacies selling 160 different brands of cough syrup which contain DXM (dextromethorphan) a mild hallucinogen. Let’s look at the actual facts. How many live are ruined by alcohol each year by drunk drivers? How many lives are lost each year from Alcohol Poisoning? How many lives are lost each year from cirrhosis of the liver? It’s in the tens of thousands. Cough syrup over dose in the hundreds. Deaths from direct use of Marijuana.....NONE! ZIP! ZERO!

Jan
Who are you? Close every business of it's type because some of them aren't licensed? Next it will be every restaurant in the city because there aren't enough health inspectors. Etc., etc. Gestapo anyone?

John Greet
John M. Fentis: The antics committed and omitted on SEADIP Sub-area 23 by Mr. Hitchcock and his 2H Construction Company were the topic of my column immediately preceeding this one and I trust I made my feelings about them crystal clear. The phrase "liberty and justice for all" still means something to many and the two concepts remain inextricably linked for me.

John Greet
criss: As the medpot discussion moves through the various City committees and the Council, I'm certain there will be ample opportunity for public input. The question that comes to my mind is whether enough members of the public will avail themselves of the opportunity to make their views sufficiently representative. Whatever course we eventually take on this public policy challenge, it must be seen to balance compassion for legitimate medpot patients with the reasonable concrns of those who live in the neighborhoods where Co-ops and Collectives are ultimately allowed to operate. Thanks for commenting.

John Greet
Michael: With respect, I've done my best to avoid both the broad generalities you seem to need to employ and the strident extremes at both ends of the spectrum on this topic. To be truly effective, I believe public policy, like law, must first receive the consent and the mandate of the people, as represented by a majority of the electorate. If laws are truly the means by which a society asserts its principles and values, then our laws must truly be seen to be applicable to all, equally. With the promise of equal jusitce must also come requirement of equal responsibility to abide by the rule of law as constrained by our constitution and fairly interpreted in our duly constituted Courts. But in any case the medpot dispensary issue is very important to many; patient, dispensary operator, community member and elected and appointed official alike. Likewise it is only a non-issue to those with viewpoints too constrained to be able to see that this challenge effects everyone in a community, directly or indirectly and to one degree or another. Thanks for joining in!

John Greet
Thanks for the comments. Both alcohol and marijuana are, indeed, psychoactive. The difference, of course, is in the types of chemicals they are composed of and, of course the effects they have on our brains and our bodies. Both are, of course, subject to abuse and abusing either can have serious and negative consequences. Another significant difference, of course, is that alcohol is not considered a controlled substance while marijuana is. Many argue, as you do, that this should be changed and perhaps you're right. The body of clinical research into the medical value of marijuana is large and growing almost daily. But that research will likely only result, eventually, in marijuana being transferred from Schedule 1 so that it might be lawfully prescribed by licensed medical professionals. Outright legalization, if it ever comes, is still a long, long way off. Asserting, however, that other substances are dangerous, even deadly, when abused, doesn't really provide an argument *for* marijuana, only *against* other substances. I think we should be able to think more critically than that. Many learned and professional medical researchers are, indeed, thinking more critically and I don't doubt that one day soon they will succeed in pushing back our society's knee-jerk prejudice against marijuana just far enough to make it easier for legitimate patients to be able to receive it without feeling as though they have to violate our federal laws to do so.

Oh Please!
Who Cares who smokes pot? It is amazing to me that these people continue to go after the dispensaries. Who cares? I guarantee they are taking money out of drug dealers pockets, making it less profitable to sell drugs. I guarantee there are fewer of these degenerates selling to kids because of the dispensaries. Legalize, tax, regulate, and treat the problem. Stop spending money chasing a problem without a cure. The battle on drugs was lost years ago yet they are still spending billions a year and cops are dying. Bad!!!!

Kevin
John: You are selectively missing some points here about alcohol and marijuana. You are trying to label them both as drugs that can be abused and therefore the point is moot. You fail to acknowledge one of those drugs causes close to 100,000 deaths a year and the other does not. Essentially what you are doing is combining alcohol and marijuana as both equally destructive. You ignore the factual evidence. They are not even close in terms of the negative effects it has on peoples’ lives. Alcohol kills people every day, marijuana does not. If we were talking about organic food and I said “Hemlock is very dangerous but carrots are safe”, your reasoning as demonstrated would label both of them as equally destructive. While it is true, carrots are not good for you in large quantities, it is simple incorrect to label them both equally bad if abused. You need to think more critically about what you are saying. Your reasoning does not hold water if you replace a few examples. My argument is not pro marijuana, my argument is about the hypocrisy of people like Tom Reeves to place marijuana into a category the he considers all patients to be “drug addicts” while other drugs like alcohol, tobacco are used recreationally. Again, cough syrup which contains a mild hallucinogen is more dangers and deadly then marijuana. It is hypocritical and factually incorrect to argue that marijuana is for drug addicts while cough syrup is sold in a store, for profit with no prescription and it contains a more potent hallucinogen.

Kevin
John: You know what they say about assumptions, yours is way off about legalization. There is a good chance marijuana will be legalized in the next state election. There are 3 marijuana initiatives competing to make it into the voting booth for 2010. The most recent Zogby polls show the public in favor of outright legalization by 56 percent. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called for open debate on legalization. Change might happen a lot sooner than you might think.

Mike P.
Officer: 'Sign here, sir. Press hard, three copies and please collect your personal items, I'll be impounding your car as well'…………………this should be followed with another statement. JUDGE: Return the drivers car, all of his personal items, what you are doing to the driver is illegal. In fact, a recent court decision said just that. a few days ago to the LAPD was ordered to return over $150,000 to a dispensary owner who was raided 2 years ago. Just because the city can't get its act together, does not mean the police can break the state laws by using their own interpretation. In a well-ordered and civil society, there must exist fair and reasonable behavior from police and city officials if they are the cause of laws being broken by citizens who have honestly tried to comply.

John Greet
Hi Jan: Apparently I wasn't sufficiently clear. I do not advocate that all of these operations be closed "because some of them aren't licensed". I advocate that all of them be closed, and some of them only temporarily, because *NONE* of them are currently licensed. I am not the Gestapo, I assure you. I simply desire that the rule of law be applied equally to all and that if we require businesses to apply for and to receive licenses to operate in our city before opening their doors that *no* business be allowed to operate until they comply with that law. Allowing these unlicensed businesses to continue to operate under the current circumstances (i.e. unlawfully) is an insult to every single business that *has* followed the law and applied for and received a business license as our Municipal Code specifically requires. Were I a licensed business owner in this city I would be *screaming* right about now because these licenses and other administrative fees are not, to any degree, inexpensive and my profit margins are thin enough as it is. Here's what I'd be be screaming: "If I have to pay these fees, so also should these others and if these others do not, I will no longer do so until such time as these others are also made to or until they are closed down, take your pick! If you want to take me and my business to Court over this, please do so! I'm sure the Judge will be anxious to hear all about how patently discriminatory your current business licensing practices are and have been. By all means please do sue me, so that when I prevail you can be required to reimburse me for every business licensing fee I have paid you from the moment the first medpot operation you allowed to operate without a license opened its doors in Long Beach." An adherence to duly enacted legislation is not naziism, Jan, it is how things are supposed to be in a Constitutional Republic. Much though some seem to have forgotten that simple truth. Thanks for commenting!

Concerned in LB
First of all let me say that I have nothing against medpot clinics or marijuana in general. As most drugs, it has its good effects and bad effects. As a concerned resident in this City, however, I am concerned about the issue of operating without a business license and not paying fees and taxes to the City, State, etc. The lack of regulation is also a concern. Maybe there have been no deaths directly related to marijuana, but that's because it is hard to separate the effects when mixed with other drugs. The point is if these medpot entities want to operate in this City, they must, at the very least do what any other business must do! The City can't keep shrugging about what to do. They must enforce the laws of "doing business in this City." If they do not, they will lose all control and will never be able to do anything. I encourage the City Council to stop being so "scared" of the unknown and do what you're supposed to do. Regulations for businesses are in place -- why not just follow them and maybe we can get a little more money into this city, which really is the only answer right now.

Concerned Patient
I am a Licensed patient. I had a stroke in 2005. I was paralyzed on the right side and lost my speech. I have other complications from being dormant for too long. Medical Marijuana is the only thing that exists to date, that helps me have understandable speech and get through physical pain, you would not understand, unless you had a stroke. I have registered at 5 businesses who dispense medical marijuana. 4 of which are in the City of Long Beach. The first business was way over priced. The 2nd business same thing. The 3rd business I registered at was raided by Federal Agents. The 4th business(in the ghetto area of Los Angeles) I registered at was robbed 2 days after I was there and their armed guard was killed by gun shot. Now, I finally found one who is reasonable and in a safe place, Long Beach, where I have lived for 45 years. It would create a physical and emotional hardship for me if they were closed down. We need several businesses to choose from, like HMO's and Doctors. It is ridiculous to say there should only be 3 open for business. What a monopoly.

John Greet
Kevin: Thanks for the continuing dialog. I'll be the first to admit that I neither know of nor possess all of the answers on this most contentious issue. But please avoid taking my comments and making erroneous extrapolations from them. I said alcohol and marijuana are both psychoactive. I never said your argument is moot that alcohol is far more greatly abused and causes far more societal damage than does marijuana. I would say, however, that marijuana does, indeed, contribute to deaths in our nation. There simply does not appear to be any specific numbers to cite on this as there are for alcohol. But, again, I have neither stated nor implied, as you erroneously allege, that both are "equally destructive". I would encourage *you* to think more critically about what I am saying. Nor do I believe Mr. Reeves has ever said that he believes "all (medpot) patients are addicts". That's simply your misperception of what he actually is saying...which is that he believes dispensaries (v. Co-ops and Collectives) currently operating in our city are doing so in blatant violation of both the language and the intent of Prop 215 and I happen to join with him in that belief. You continue to assert your cough syrup argument as if it were somehow pertinent. It is not. DXM can certainly be abused, just as any psychoactive can, even caffeine, but unlike marijuana, neither alcohol nor DXM appear on our federal drug schedules. Perhaps one day marijuana will be dropped as well, but in the meantime there it sits and as long as it does, I think your issue should be more with Congress and the Executive Branch than with Mr. Reeves. When I express doubt that marijuana will ever be legalized outright, I am referring to federal level legalization, not State level as you assumed. But then, "you know what they say about assumptions". One of my main points is that unless and until we deal appropriately with marijuana at the federal level, we will always experience these sorts of challenges concerning it at the State and local levels.

Kevin
John: You got to open up that mind and stop your knee-jerk reaction relegating marijuana to similar status as other dangerous drugs. You state that it contributes to deaths in our nation, really? Where are you facts? Oh I know you just can’t find them so whatever you think must be true. That’s real critical thinking isn’t it? The facts are that marijuana has been used for thousands of years with no major effects until a propaganda campaign in the early 1900s linking it with racial stereotypes. Even pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly was producing whole plant cannabis extract for sale to patients whose physicians made a recommendation. Study after study since the 70s, come up showing that marijuana is not a dangerous drug. You want facts? Check out: Marijuana Use and Mortality -American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002. This massive study found marijuana had no significant increase in mortality. I could list a dozen other but I won’t, my point is you don’t really want to hear facts or you just are so ignorant it never occurred to you that there are studies on the subject contrary to your beliefs.

Kevin
John: City Prosecutor Tom Reeve article in the LBPOST……. 'So ask yourself again, Medical Dispensary or Dope Dealer? My answer �' No Difference! They are both dope dealers.' This is the exact quote. The only misperception here is your lack of ability to take a statement and it's underlying spirit of the words without putting your own spin on it. Reeves never said in his letter to the post that Co-Ops and Collectives were excluded from his argument. That is simply your fabricated take on his written words. However, it wouldn't surprise me once he looses his goal of closing ALL Medical Dispensaries, he will try to save face and spin his argument to say he meant only the illegal ones not the co-ops and claim he saved the city.

Advocates for Disability
Prop 215, which was supported by the majority of California citizens, includes the following: (Purpose) "To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana." The State of California has failed in this endeavor. Why is it that Prosecutor Reeves and District Attorney Cooley have disregarded this flagrant ignorance of the law? Their punitive energies and ambitions should be re-directed toward the implementation of this section so that cannabis dispensaries would not be needed.

John Greet
Kevin: Marijuana, while varying in type and having effects that differ from some other Schedule 1 drugs, does share at least one characteristic with all other Schedule 1 drugs...it's a Schedule 1 drug. Alcohol is not, much though you seem to need to ignore this truth. I do not claim that marijuana *should* be on Schedule 1 -quite the contrary- I simply point out that it currently is one. While I do not intend to engage in a "war of the research studies" with you, I will say that there is credible clinical research that has concluded, among other things, that "Epidemiology data from road traffic arrests and fatalities indicate that after alcohol, marijuana is **the most frequently detected psychoactive substance among driving populations**. Marijuana has been shown to impair performance on driving simulator tasks and on open and closed driving courses for up to approximately 3 hours. Decreased car handling performance, increased reaction times, impaired time and distance estimation, inability to maintain headway, lateral travel, subjective sleepiness, motor incoordination, and impaired sustained vigilance have all been reported". (NHTSA)(Emphasis added) This is but one of many studies that support a valid concern for marijuana-impaired driving. Many other clinical studies support concerns for the short and long term adverse personal health effects of inhaling marijuana smoke. (NIDA) But for each study I might offer, you may have your own contradicting it and my intent is *not* -and never was- to equate alcohol with marijuana in this area. But marijuana is currently a Schedule 1 drug and alcohol is not. This is a fact that even you cannot deny. I think that abuse of *any* substance is bad but you seem so wrapped up in your defensiveness in this area that you cannot see that I am an ally, and not an enemy, in the growing movement to decriminalize marijuana. As to Mr. Reeves: His letter to LBPOST on the matter was quite clear, at least to me. Regardless of what such an operation may presume to call itself, if it does not meet the criteria laid out in Prop 215 and later clarified in People v. Mentch, he considers it to be a "dispensary" conducting nothing more than over-the-counter sales of marijuana products, a felony, and in doing so such an operation differs from the street corner drug dealer only insofar as where the transaction is occuring. But please do show me, if you can, where Mr. Reeves ever stated, or even implied, as you have asserted, that "he considers all patients to be drug addicts". When he addressed the Council's EDFC on December 16, 2008 on this matter he, in fact, stated -at time stamp 01:02:53- quite unequivocally: "It doesn't mean that Cooperatives and Collectives can't exist, it simply addresses a particular kind of operation and that's an over-the-counter sale...". Mr. Reeves draws a clear distinction between "dispensaries" and "Co-ops/Collectives" and, I believe, accurately. One final note: Resorting to insult and relying upon hyperbole does nothing to forward a constructive dialog on this -or any- topic and everything to obstruct that goal.

John Greet
It appears that my suggestion of 3 Co-ops/Collectives per District was more than Councilwoman and EDFC Chair Rae Gabelich wants to see. Her suggestion last night was 9 for the entire City, or 1 per District. But whether 1 or 3 or 5, we need to start fresh, close all of them at least temporarily and evaluate each susbsequent applicant on a case-by-case basis. We must find a means to balance the needs of legitimate patients like yourself with the needs and concerns of the rest of the community. Thanks for commenting!

John Greet
Advocates for Disability: Nice to hear from you! The problem, of course, is that no language in any State law is likely to "encourage" the federal government to do anything it isn't willing to do. If the federal government continues to refuse to cooperate in this, then nothing State and local governments do will really matter much. The Justice Departments recent assurances notwithstanding, federal legislation outlawing marijuana remains firmly on the books and marijuana remains firmly entrenched on Drug Schedule 1. As long as both remain the case, the federal enforcement "pendulum" can always swing back in the other, more heavy-handed, direction with the next Presidential administration so inclined. Transfer marijuana to another Drug Schedule or legalize it altogether, and all the rest, at all governmental levels, will readily fall into place. But this solution can only come from a federal government that, so far, has not been willing to demonstrate the courage of it's alleged convictions on this issue.

John Greet
Mike P: Thanks for joining in. It is not unlawful for peace officers in California to impound a vehicle being operated by an unlicensed driver. Please review CVC 14602.6(a)(1). Please also cite for me the LAPD case you mention. I would very much like to review it. Thanks!

Greg
It's only weed

Puritanical Argument
What a puritanical view of the world. Close all the business and then start with a clean slate? Not going to happen. Cultures happen then leaders immerge. Cities spring up, then organization fallows. Conflicts arise, then laws are made. This is no different. The issue of licenses that this article rambles on about is insignificant to the real issue. The city failed to be pro-active by regulating early from the council down to the whining rants of the city prosecutor. The city should just stop already and issue license. They can always be revoked. Taxes can be collected and hopefully the police protect instead of harass the business. The city prosecutor needs to back off his high horse. The notion that all dispensaries are illegal because they are not true Co-Ops (in his opinion) is a thinly veiled argument for anti-marijuana advocates. If Reeves had his way, no one would have access because nothing would be good enough for him. Sick cancer or AIDS patients I know can hardly get through the day without help much less grown their own plants. Let's stop this ridiculous fixation with puritanical elements of the law and focus on the spirit: make access safe, legal and accessible to all patients in need. The people of California have spoken.

Greggory
I'm afraid Mr. Greet is right on one point: legalization of marijuana is a long, long way. (I pray that I'm wrong, but...) And his political and legal viewpoint is what it is. However, several of the comments here taking him to task on his views on marijuana are right on. To cite NIDA is a joke, as NIDA exists largely to justify extant government policy. Their representation of the scientific literature is selective and shoddy. For example, read what they say about marijuana thoroughly and you won't find a reference to the medical consensus that there is NO solid evidence for ANY possibility of physical addiction to marijuana - because, after all, that would be a bad thing to admit if you're the federal gov't (which NIDA is). When they mention addiction potential at all, the studies they reference are psychological only (e.g., from *The Journal of Abnormal Psychology*). They also don't mention the impossibility of overdose. Etc. Also, saying "marijuana does contribute to deaths in our nation" is like saying that cell phones and texting and television and the Internet contribute to deaths in our nations: inherently they absolutely do not (unlike alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, etc.) And there's at least one part of his thinking that raises the question of how he frames the whole issue: when he says "Marijuana, while varying in type and having effects that differ from some other Schedule 1 drugs, does share at least one characteristic with all other Schedule 1 drugs...it's a Schedule 1 drug" - but in fact that commonality has NOTHING to do with the drugs themselves, only with the way in which the government groups them. It's an important point to note, because this is a case where government policy has ZERO to do with science.

John Greet
Greg: I would tend to agree. Unfortunately the majority of voters, elected and appointed officials and judges and juries do not tend to agree. Hence the discussion.

Civil Disobedience
Smoke weed, don't smoke weed, be gay/straight or any combination, be Christian, Jew, or Pagan be who you are, but do not infringe the rights of others. That's what liberty is about. The government should enforce that we do does not infringe on others, while ensuring our RIGHT TO LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT of HAPPINESS, how you live your life and pursue that happiness should not concern anyone else as long as it does not infringe on mine. If the government fails to protect your right, civil disobedience is in order!

John Greet
Puritanical: As far as I can craft them, my views are consistently aligned with a strong belief in the concepts of individual liberty and personal freedom while maintaining an adherence to our Constitution and the rule of law. Far from being "puritanical", these views are in close agreement with those the Founders held as they were helping to create this greatest of nations. The nation they eventually helped to create was, and remains, imperfect, but they were wise enough to build into our system of government the ability to make changes to that system. But while we endeavor to make those changes, we must remain adherent to the laws that we have seen fit to enact. If we do not do so, as far as possible and at all times, we risk eventually devolving into anarchy. My understanding of Mr. Reeves position is far different from yours. If one will but pay closer attention to *what* he is saying, rather than *how* he is saying it, I believe one will find that he is trying, as an elected prosecutor and an Officer of the Court, to show us how we might craft the letter of the law to be more closely aligned with the spirit of the law. To the degree that Mr. Reeves is trying to help our City do this right, I believe he is demonstrating far more compassion than many who *claim* to be doing so but, in truth , are doing those they claim to be trying to help, far more harm than good.

John Greet
Hi Greggory and thanks for chiming in! While I understand your apparent bias against governmental sources of information, do you also acknowledge that many non-governmental sources of information are biased in other directions? Isn't it safe to say that most of the sources relied upon by pro-legalization and pro-medpot advocates have a consistent bias in that same direction? Can we not simply let facts speak for themselves, regardless of their source, and agree that there are just as many equally reputable studies on both sides of the argument? BTW, I am not anti-medpot or anti-legalization to any degree. I just happen to think we should go about achieving those objectives in a more lawful manner than some others seem to. I'm sure you're aware that there are specific and qualifiable reasons that the Fed groups drugs onto different schedules. Nor are these Schedules in any way engraved in stone. Many transfers between Schedules have occurred since these Schedules were originally established. I happen to think there now exists more than sufficient clinical proof to support an argument against 2 of the 3 reasons marijuana exists on Schedule 1 with the many other drugs found there. But rather than working to that far more appropriate and productive end, our current Presidential administration would prefer to leave a bad law on the books and enforce it only haphazardly. This does nothing to solve the challenge long term and only serves to undermine duly enacted legislation. BTW, nice job last night at B&P. You spoke well and were convincing. I got the impression that you were more interested in arguing *against* Mr. Reeves (personally and professionally) rather than *for* Co-ops and Collectives in Long Beach, but I enjoyed the presentation nonetheless.

Eric E.
John: With due respect, you were wrong about Prop 8 then; and you are wrong about it now. A majority of Californians are determined to maintain public schools as institutions for education; not ACLU-driven instruments of social change. The majority of Californians want judges to enforce the law; not create the law. Period.

John Greet
Eric E: The best way to take back control of our public education system is at the ballot box, where we each have an equal say in who is elected to our local Boards of Education. The majority of Californians should want our laws and government-extended benefits and priveleges to apply equally to all consenting adults. I choose to believe that they'll come around eventually. Thanks for the comments!

Greggory
John: My bias against government sources is not across the board, only when those sources show their clear bias, as with NIDA or as when the Bush administration was actively working to suppress data on global warming from its own Goddard Institute when that data did not support the administrations position. In short, I look at each case on its merits. What I would acknowledge is that SOME non-governmental sources are biased. But the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, etc., not so much. Anyway, I realize you are not anti-medpot; I think you've been clear enough on that, even if I disagree with your approach to dealing with dispensaries on the local level. And we absolutely agree that if the gov't would stop being so non-scientific and spineless they'd (for a start) change the scheduling, then there are parts of this discussion we would need to bother about. Thanks for the kind words about B&P. You're not wrong that I was perhaps more interested in going after Reeves. That's because I believe the efficaciousness of medpot is pretty much beyond debate, whereas how we deal with this issue locally is very much in play, with the amelioration of the suffering of those in need hanging in the balance - and I just don't see Reeves as at all concerned with that paramount aspect.

John Greet
Greggory: So, as mentioned, we should let the facts speak for themselves, regardless of whence they come and we should not discount facts presented by, say, "NORML" or "medicalmj" simply because of those organizations' clear bias anymore than we should discount facts presented by, say, NIDA or NHTSA. The fact that so many credible organizations, entities and individuals continue to debate the efficacy of medpot, makes it clear, at least to me, that the issue is hardly "beyond debate". Let me ask you this, though: Which do you feel is truly the more compassionate approach in the current legislative and judicial landscape: Ignoring local laws requiring licensing and prudent regulation of medpot Co-ops, Collectives and Dispensaries, thus making uninspected medpot facilities and products more available to legitmate patients as well as to non-legitmate patients -or- scrupulously adhering to our local laws and regulations thus better assuring that medpot facilities and products are safer for, if less available to, legitimate patients and better preventing their unlawful access by non-legitimate patients? It seems to me that in the name of "compassion" we have been turning a blind eye to these operations (thus ignoring many of our responsibilities as a municipal corporation and a community) and that, in doing so, we have unnecessarily compromised (or at least increased the risk to) the health and safety of legitimate patients and many other community members as well. Given this context I find the legal approach to, in fact, *BE* the more compassionate approach. What say you?

Rick A Hull
I think that if homosexual relationships are to be considered for equal benefits as hetrosexuals, non-married hetrosexual couples should be included. Some households also include 3 or more adults to survive in this economic environment. However, it we start allowing such benefits to exist where do we draw the line so that businesses are not over taxed by such insurances. We want to be business friendly, but our policies on this issue can greatly effect their decision to be based themeselves here. I know we give perks to large employers, but such perks are not as obvious to smaller employers as the liberties given to the several kinds of domestic partners we might allow. I would rather see employment increased, than such liberties to be embelished in our laws. Also the distinctions between drinking and marajuana are tricky. People get stupid and/or impared on either. Marajuana at least gives some degree of comfort to those in chronic pain where other medications are equally disruptive for "opperating large machinery" such as driving. Herein is another blurred line. Other pain medications are not only psychologically addictive, but are chemically addictive. Here in the Hollywood sqhere of influence, of all people, should be aware of pharmaceutical dependance. Let's legalize marajuana, and start setting the trend of understanding the needs of chronically ill people. They deserve our care and the liberties to live a better quality of life.

danny b
John, you write: "Put simply, an EBO is just as discriminatory in one way as Prop 8 was in another. Both seek to employ the law to deprive people of government-extended rights and privileges and both are wrong." In fact, Long Beach is not denying anyone any rights or privileges; Long Beach and other EBO cities are simply acting as market players signing a contract. Courts have explicitly made this distinction regarding EBO's - they are legal if the city acts as a market player; they are illegal if the city uses power only available to government.Whether Long Beach *should* condider companies' benefits, or their policies towards LGBT employees, when entering into contracts, is apparently debatable, but it must be taken on the merits, because it is just factually wrong to equate the way the state uses it power in Prop 8 to the way a city carries out an EBO. Prop 8 can only be enforced because the state - and its subsidiaries, the counties and cities - have a monopoly on marriage. However, government does not have a monopoly on contracts, not at the state, county, or city level - we are market players. This difference is essential and has guided the crafting of this legislation.

danny b
There is no legal definition of a "dispensary" or “over the counter” - not in the CUA, not in SB 420, not in any of the relevant court cases - so deeming these entities (whatever they are) illegal is rather odd. The distinction between “coop/collective” and “dispensary” is a phony one made up by law enforcement officials with NO basis in case law or statute. Look it up. Mentsch says NOTHING about “dispensaries” - or about cooperative or collectives; all it does is address the “caretaker” defense. However, in a dictionary, "dispensing" is close to synonymous with "distributing," "transporting" or "selling," all crimes for which medical marijuana holders are explicitly protected from prosecution in statute AND case law. The courts have had many opportunities to define "dispensaries" and/or make a broad ruling against "storefronts", or "over the counter sales" or "dispensaries" and in no case has any court ruled them illegal, nor has any said that cash transactions are illegal - in fact, cash transactions are explicitly allowed in even the decisions most celebrated by law enforcement. Rather than focusing on a made up word, it's far more useful to look at how "collectively/cooperatively" is being defined, since those terms have an actual statutory meaning, and are the future of medical marijuana. As to business licenses: To punish people for not having a license that the government refuses to issue for a legal activity sounds like Franz Kafka's bad dream. In a democracy, the law has to catch up with reality, not vice-versa. Finally, comparisons of alcohol to marijuana are groundless. Imbibed alcohol has no modern medicinal use, and kills by acute or chronic use hundreds of thousands of Americans every year; I would challenge anyone to document more than a dozen fatalaties even indirectly related to marijuana (drug dealers shooting each other over blackmarket territory doesnt count). Alcohol is severely physical addicting, and withdrawl requires hospitalization and can be fatal; marijuana dependence is a far more mild condition with no potential for physical harm during withdrawal. Alcohol intoxication is strongly associated statistically with violent crime; no such association exists with cannabis, despite many, many attempts to demonstrate a link. Long term use of alcohol can cause severe organ damage, dementia, and psychosis (including real - and permanent - hallucinations, not the mild visual distortions experienced by the "stoner"); no remotely comparable illness is caused by even the heaviest use of cannabis, and classification of marijuana as a hallucinogen is dated - the medical establishment rejects it. Schedule I? In California, we call it medicine (and it is far safer than almost every major pharmaceutical). Bottom line: The will of the voters and the legislature of California is to extend medical use of marijuana to Californians. Given the severe problem with violent crime and hard drugs in this city, the city should simply create reasonable regulations, give people a reasonable time to comply (as is done for most classes of people subject to new laws - EBO is a great example)and then spend a reasonable amount of resources on enforcement - most of which will hopefully be generated by taxes on sales - which the attorney general and board of equalization have approved. New road; please help or get out of the way.

John Greet
Is it really you? If so, welcome back. If not, welcome anyway! Concerning EBO's: I disagree with the contention (re. the finding in "ATA v. San Francisco") that Long Beach would simply be acting as a "market participant" when signing a contract. This misperception subsumes that the playing field upon which legislatures and bidders play is somehow level...that their powers and authorities are somehow co-equal...and neither is the case. Legislatures, like the Long Beach City Council, can, as you put so very well once before, "use the power of law" by enacting legislation. This is a power that private parties do not enjoy. The City can therefore use law to, in effect, *mandate* preference. Potential bidders that do not offer RDP benefits parity may not be operating as we would *prefer* but they *are* operating lawfully and they should not, therefore, be excluded outright, as a matter of local law, from the opportunity to do business with the City. In a proper free-market economy it is no more appriopriate for a legislative entity (like the City Council) to pass legislation that denies access to businesses operating lawfully than it would be to force a business to do business with that body even though that business might not desire to. As you, yourself, state, this is unlawful if the city is using powers available only to government...powers like enacting adversely descriminatory legislation like EBO's. The City, does, indeed, have a monopoly upon who can do business with it. No bidder is awarded a contract with Long Beach unless Long Beach permits it. This is precisely why a "lowest responsible bidder" standard is considered lawful where an EBO should not be. In the lowest responsible bidder model, *all* bidders can apply and compete, equally, according to sound market principles. The bidder that is responsible and that can save us the most money is then (allegedly) selected. But in the EBO model, even if a responsible bidder underbids all other bidders, if they do not also offer RDP benefits parity, the bid is not considered, let alone awarded, even though they are operating entirely within existing federal, State and local laws by not doing so. This latter approach is, indeed, monopolistic, because the bidder does not have the ability to pass his own laws to contradict the City's EBO. Your own words once again help me make my argument: Prop 8 can only be enforced because the State - and its subsidiaries, the counties and cities - have a monopoly on marriage. When it passes legislation that denies access to business that are operating lawfully, government does indeed exert a monopoly on contracts. When the City (ab)uses it's legislative authority in this way, it is *not* acting as a simple market player but, rather, as a monopoly, imposing undue influence upon the market and using it's unique ability to pass laws to do so.

John Greet
Hello again, Daniel: Concerning medpot: Dispensary, like Coooprative and Collective, are simply names. Mr. Reeves attempts to simplify the dialog and debate by referring to *lawful* medpot operations as Collectives and Co-ops and unlawful medpot operations as Dispensaries. No one need agree with his attempt at simplification. As you point out, his usage is not one that has received either judicial or statutory notice. As mentioned, it's just an attempt to simplifiy the dialog. He could just as easily have said: "These types of medpot operations are proper under the law and for the purposes of this discussion I'm going to call those 'Blues and Yellows'. By contrast these sorts of medpot operations are not proper under the law and for the purposes of this discussion I'm going to call them 'Purples'. From now on, when I refer to the unlawful sorts of medpot operations, I'll be referring to 'Purples'". Do we really want to get caught up in what he chooses to *call* them? The POINT is that he's clearly defined what he considers to be a "Dispensary". If you don't like his use of that term then do simple mental translation...it's really not that tough is it? For profit "over the counter sales" of marijuana remains unlawful, much though many (including myself) would prefer that they were not. In a Democracy, laws must be changed to reflect the society's changing principles and values, thus maintaining the integrity of the rule of law. In the civil society, this is the only correct approach. To begin to ignore existing laws simply because they may no longer meet with our personal approval is to devolve from civil society into anarchy. Like many, you make the erroneous comparison between alcohol and marijuana. Alcohol is not a Schedule 1 drug, marijuana is. Correct *that* error and all the rest becomes moot. Marijuana is *not* medicine in California unless it is grown, transferred and used in *full compliance* with our statutory and case laws that define it in that way. So let's stop, once and for all, this foolish and disingenuous assertion that for-profit, over-the-counter marijuana sales operations (whatever they may call themselves) are providing "medicine" shall we? I'm all for properly regulating legitimate medpot operations, Daniel, and I've never said otherwise. What we, as a City, should **not** continue to do, however, is to permit the continued operation of illegitimate facilities, out of some twisted and misplaced sense of compassion. The truly compassionate approach would be to shut those down...every last one of them.

Anonymous
If you can go out and choose what kind of beer, hard alcohol and cigarettes along with your milk and bread when you go grocery shopping, then tell me why you cant choose what kind of marijuana you can buy too? Just tell me that. Use your flawless logic and tell me why pot is classified with Heroin in the DEA drugs. Tell me why Marijuana is so much worse than alcohol. Oh and you know why its so easy to catch marijuana drug dealers? Because we have no guns! We're too peaceful. At least I'm honest about legalizing Marijuana,some of us just like to get high. I hope some fundlementalist christians learn that no matter how much you oppress us gays or us potheads, we're not leaving. Oh and lets also put the Holland drug policy into play, look how much crime has gone down with the decriminalization of most drugs. If we regulate marijuana its gonna stay out of our kids hands, just like alcohol or cigarettes. USE YOUR HEAD.

John Greet
Anonymous: You ask: "If you can go out and choose what kind of beer, hard alcohol and cigarettes along with your milk and bread when you go grocery shopping, then tell me why you cant choose what kind of marijuana you can buy too? Just tell me that." And I answer: "Because beer, hard alcohol, cigarettes, milk and bread are not Schedule 1 Drugs." I cannot offer you a logical reason for keeping marijuana on Schedule 1. I, personally, don;t beleive it should be there, but neither your personal beliefs nor mine can cause it to be transferred. Congress approves the federal Drug Schedules and Congress can (and should) approve this transfer. Why they do not would be a question for your Congressperson. Further, why our Federal Executive Branch chooses to haphazardly enforce duly enacted federal laws, rather than encourage Congress to make this change is quite frankly beyond me. Please consider reading all of what I have written on this topic and thinking more critically about it. Once you do you may find you will be less inclined to take me to task as you have. But thanks for commenting in any case!

danny b
Re EBO: All I can say is, you’ve missed the point �' you’ve missed the relevant distinction, though the courts have long recognized it. The city has powers to discriminate, but with the EBO it doesn’t use them �' it acts exactly and precisely as any market player can and does act: By choosing with whom to do business. It makes no attempt to regulate business between any other parties �' though government has that ability in many cases. That would arguably be discriminatory in the sense of prop 8, but the EBO is not. Just as you or I as individual market players can choose not to do business with companies who do not have EB’s (or any other policy we think ethically necessary) so can the city. Prop 8 is the opposite �' the state uses powers that only it has, to discriminate against a class of people. It's simply a different animal, and equating the two puts you at odds not just with legal precedent, but with logic and common sense. Re medpot: Neither I nor anyone I’m aware of has argued that for-profit sales are legal. I have said nothing about “over the counter” because like “dispensary” it’s a misleading and irrelevant term. OTC has a pre-existing legal meaning; it means “without a prescription.” Since medical marijuana cannot be “prescribed” (only recommended) ALL transactions of medpot are “over the counter”. As to a distinction between “dispensaries” (code for illegal?) and “collectives” (code for legal?): what I said was, let’s study what it really means to be a collective/cooperative under MMPA and CUA, instead of focusing on words with no relevant legal meaning. That’s the way forward. Finally, I would point out that it’s you who raised the utterly useless, irrelevant, and extremely time-worn comparison between marijuana and alcohol. I’m just responding to it.

Cathy
In society today adults have to make millions of important decisions, a lot of which can have a drastic effect on their lives, even death. We are responsible for our choices, and we suffer and prosper from our choices, it’s what makes each individual who they ultimately become. This is called freedom of choice, ownership of ones self. We are legally allowed to make these choices everyday, including many that can be instantly fatal such as riding recreational dirt bikes for the thrill of it, even though it could cost us our lives, its our choice to make. By trying to force people into not consuming a natural plant we are effectively causing more harm than if we were to let each adult make their own choices and except the consequences for those choices. The harm prohibition has brought to not just our own country, but the vast majority of the world is on a remarkably large scale, and threatens our national security. By choosing to prohibit this substance, we have chosen to ignore it and to let it be controlled by the black market. This in turn has enriched criminal enterprises to the point they have the financial power to compete with their own governments on a military bases as seen in Mexico. This is a national security threat. Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and the majority of citizens know this, this in turn creates disrespect for law enforcement thereby furthering the deterioration of our community as a whole. It is inhumane to lock a person in a cage and take away their belongings they worked for when they did nothing to harm any other individual or society. Current marijuana laws are a civil rights nightmare waiting to happen, and only makes marijuana readily available to anyone of any age. The laws are obviously bad, expensive and unyielding in accomplishments. We spend billions each year to try and stop marijuana consumption, and yet the DEA admits they would be surprised if they are even getting 1% of the drugs being transported. That’s a bad investment, and the majorities do not agree with it, and there is no justification for making marijuana illegal in the first place. Prohibition is bad for our kids as they have complete access to it as long as its being controlled by the black market, what we need is control and regulation to minimize the exposure of drugs to young children. As long as it is illegal or decriminalized there will be a black market selling it at a marked up value because of risk, and all the harm will continue. By legalizing marijuana we are effectively controlling its distribution, and can much better regulate its use by age limits. Simply put, it’s a real no brainer and it will eventually happen, so if it’s not working now, and has the potential to be better why would we stay put? Let’s not continue to turn regular tax paying citizens into tax burdens for the rest of us, there comes a time when you have to realize a bad investment is a bad investment. Please help us do the right thing, listen to the people of California who have bravely stood up for a positive change in our society, drugs may not bee good for us, but prohibition has proven far worse.

Greggory
My very delayed response to John: A) The consensus among the scientific community is that the efficaciousness of marijuana for a variety of conditions is a fact. You believe that there are credible organizations still firmly on the other side because you fail to be able to discern what counts for a credible organization. Here's a start: discount the federal gov't, whose well-established policy has nothing to do with science (and in fact was established long before science had the means to chime in). The fact that you didn't discount the feds from the start amply shows that you're very far from a vantage point where you can begin to make informed judgments on (at least) this side of the issue. B) 'It seems to me that in the name of "compassion" we have been turning a blind eye to these operations [...] and that, in doing so, we have unnecessarily compromised (or at least increased the risk to) the health and safety of legitimate patients and many other community members as well.' Well, I'm all in favor regulations (so long as they don't limit patient access); but if there really has been such risk or comprises to health and safety, surely you can name a couple of incidents where something bad has happened, yes? After all, I would certainly have no trouble coming up with many instances of health and safety problems in even well-regulated industries (e.g., food) -- so you really should have no trouble doing so for one so dangerously unregulated as medpot.

francois
Addressing to John Greet's right wing explanation that all dispensaries should be closed, especially those that take out a business license for some other reason, then add marijuana to their inventory: Shouldn't this type of policy be directed across the board to all businesses, even the barber shop that decides to sell knick knacks to supplement his income? By this reasoning, the city should place more emphasis on the smaller people who can't afford to buy a business license; the weekly yard and garage sellers. Here's a though, John, shut down any business that offends you. Slam the doors on these medpot dispensaries and have you pay for the increased health care many people will surely need. Better yet, with the state on the cusp of potentially legalizing marijuana, let's chase off all potential city revenue. Stop spewing your exclusionary rhetoric. Medpot might one day be your only relief from one of the health care problems it helps so many others deal with. But by your actions, it won't be available. I think you would like to be the Pot Czar of Long Beach. The time has come to legalize marijuana. This will make an enormous dent in the dollars that are flowing to other countries with the illicit black market. We could use the money. The only regulations should be for age.

John Greet
danny b: Neither you nor I, as individuals, as DBA's or as publicly or privately held corporations, have the legislative authority to enact laws to prevent others from doing business with us. An EBO does not enable a city to "decide who it will do business with". The city has always had such an ability and it never needed an EBO to act upon it. What an EBO does is to PROHIBIT others -who are fully complying with existing law- from the opportunity of doing business with the City, while extending that opportunity to others who are also complying with existing law. This, I assert, is patently and adversely discriminatory. I contend that a business that is fully complying with the law should not be prevented, as a matter of law, from competing for City (i.e. public) contracts. An EBO would do just that. I do not pretend to be an attorney, let alone a Judge, let alone a Supreme Court Judge, but I strongly believe that our Courts err, and grievously, when they fail to recognize that a legislative body cannot possibly be acting solely as any other "market participant", when it can enact a law that can adversely impact any other "market participant". That's akin to saying that a legislature can enact a law that imposes a tax or a fine or a fee "just like any other other market participant". When, in fact, no other "market participant" can do so. You employ the term "choice" quite a bit in your arguments. But please explain how a law that mandates and prohibits has anything whatsoever to do with choice? The City would not be enacting an EBO so it can "choose" to not do business with someone, our existing "lowest responsible bidder" standard already does that. The City would be enacting an EBO to *prohibit* someone -again, who is operating their business in a lawful manner- from even competing for it's business. Suppose one day a vegan Council member decides that our City should not do business with people who eat meat? Suppose they propose an ordinance that prevents people who eat meat from bidding on City contracts. Should we enact such an ordinance? It's not unlawful to eat meat, this Council member simply has a *preference* that he or she wants to translate into a local law that would discriminate against meat-eaters. So what's the difference? I say there is none. Concerning medpot: The proper place to begin the legitimization of marijuana for medical purposes is at the federal level, the only level where it has not yet occurred. Transfer marijuana to any other Drug Schedule and all of this is solved. But instead of doing that, you and others seem to want to make excuses for medpot operations that are currently operating *unlawfully* throughout our city. To me, this seems an exceedingly strange approach, coming, as it in some cases does, from some who have sworn an oath to uphold our laws and from others who consider themselves to be "Legislative Directors". Until such time as Long Beach determines that it will issue business licenses to medpot operations and precisely how to go about doing that, there should not be one single medpot operation in Long Beach. If it's worth doing, Daniel, it's worth doing properly and lawfully. But neither is currently the case. If we are to be and to remain a civil and well-ordered society we must adhere, as far as possible, to the rule of law. Whenever we make excuses and depart from that path we become...something else, something less. Thanks again for checking in.

Naive I. T.
Hi John: I'm admittedly totally naive on this whole medpot thing. I was completely astounded to learn that some are opening near schools. So I got to thinking this sounds more like "dealing," than medicine. Is there a regulation on who can purchase from these medpot "clinics?" These clinics sound more like an Amsterdam-cafe than a clinic. And if pot can be dispensed, why not heroin? I guess I'm wondering why the police don't raid these clinics, confiscate the contraband and prosecute the operators? And then our courts would sentence them; our prisons would hold them; and basically our laws would be enforced. What am I missing?

John Greet
Naive I.T: The CUA, the MMPA, the State Attorney General guidelines and various Court cases have all helped to define who is, and is not, considered to be a legitmate medpot "qualified patient". 11362.5(A) H&S states: "To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief." Ultimately, then, the determination is a matter between a patient and his/her physician, as I believe it should be. Legitimate medpot operations are those that operate in *full compliance* with State *and* local laws governing them, specifically, and any other legitimate enterprise, generally. Cops in some jurisdictions are, indeed, raiding allegedly legitimate medpot operations, just not in Long Beach. Nor do I believe cops in Long Beach should be doing so. But every legitimate medpot operation in Long Beach should be properly licensed and regulated and there must, therefor, be mechanisms for inspection and enforcement. I think existing civilian inspectors can perform this function more than adequately without the need for armed sworn police officers to be involved at all. Pot can be dispensed in California because it has been decriminalized for this purpose, while heroin has not. Being in California, Long Beach must abide by controlling State laws on the matter. The challenge, of course, is that Long Beach, like any other municipality in the State, is allowed to regulate these and all other enterprises in its jurisdiction. The draft medpot ordinance recently released by our City Attorney is the beginnings of an attempt at regulation in our City. Until then, we do have a business licensing law that all medpot operations in the City are currently in violation of, in one way or another (fruadulent application, fraudulent operation or absence of a license altogether). Those are my answers to your various questions as I understand them. Thanks for visiting!

Naive I. T.
John: Thank goodness I have none of the illnesses being treated by medpot. And I sympathize with those that do. I just worry that these clinics are another liberal attack against children and the family. I teach my children that any drug not administered by a parent or doctor is illegal and bad for you. I also teach that pot is bad: I watched a straight-A pre-med college friend toke his way to a six-year business degree. Now we have state- and city-sanctioned dispensaries popping up next to schools and advertising in their parking lots. And I worry what message that gives to our kids. While I sympathize with those that are afflicted, I'm obligated to protect my children. Perhaps we could use existing pharmacies, like Long's Drug, etc.

John Greet
Naive I.T: I appreciate your concerns and reservations regarding marijuana and medpot generally and mepot operations in Long Beach specifically. They are shared by many. Perhaps I can allay some of your fears for you: Medical Marijuana, when produced, possessed, "traded" and used in a manner prescribed by State law is entirely lawful in California and, I think, should be. Medical marijuana, when handled properly is **always** recommended by a physician and **always** for legitimate malaadies and illnesses, some of them chronic and exceedingly painful to suffer with. The City should, indeed must, regulate these operations in a manner that best meets the needs of legitimate patients and the concerns of the balance of our community. It's taking our Council next to forever to get this done, but they're working on it, where some other communities are still pretending to be blind to the entire challenge or simply refusing to permit medpot operations within their jurisdictions altogether. So "let not your heart be troubled", I think we, as a community, will get this all sorted out eventually. Thanks again for your comments!

Our Liberty

John invites you to join him in discussing and debating national, state and local public policy issues that impact Long Beach. John strongly believes that it is our liberties, our freedoms and our responsibilities as free people in a Constitutional Republic that frame the debate on all public policy deliberations and that open, honest and respectful dialog is the key to better understanding these sometimes complex but always entertaining issues.

John B. Greet is a native resident and employee of the City of Long Beach. His views and opinions are his own and in no way reflect the official positions or policies of the City of Long Beach or any of its Departments, nor are they intended to. John is married with 4 children and 2 pets; is a military veteran; a community volunteer; and an avid reader, researcher and freshwater fisherman.