City Council to Consider Banning Medpot Dispensaries -- Which Is What It Wanted All Along?
- Details
- By Greggory Moore
- | Monday, 12 December 2011 07:10
11:20am | In March 2010, with the city council on the cusp of passing a draconic medpot ordinance, then-7th District Councilmember Tonia Reyes Uranga said what was evident to many observers: "Let's be very clear: the purpose of this ordinance is to put [collectives] out of business."
On Tuesday the City Council is likely to take a step toward helping Reyes put "Prophet" on her resume, as they entertain adding Chapter 5.89 to the Long Beach Municipal Code, which would "repeal the City's existing medical marijuana regulations (Chapter 5.87) and would at the same time enact a ban on medical marijuana collectives and dispensaries citywide."
In his letter to the council recommending the passage of 5.89, City Attorney Robert Shannon wrote, "The recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Pack v. City of Long Beach has essentially eliminated the City's ability to effectively regulate dispensaries and collectives."
Because the authors of the Pack decision go out of their way to point out that their ruling does not necessarily render all portions of Long Beach's ordinance illegal, it is the interpretation of the adjective "effectively" that may keep Shannon's above-referenced sentence from being untrue -- and that speaks to what Uranga saw from an inside-perspective nearly two years ago.
It may be conjectured that as a whole, despite the sincerity of a few individuals, the City of Long Beach never wanted to allow collectives, but did so (ironically, as it turns out) in an attempt to obviate potential lawsuits that might have resulted from an outright ban on collectives. Consider the following:
Because (as is pointed out in the Pack decision) Long Beach's ordinance provides that “If any provision of this Chapter, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Chapter that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application; and to this end, the provisions or applications of this Chapter are severable" (5.87.130), the City is free to reconstitute its ordinance by striking out the provisions Pack found to be illegal. And that is exactly what Long Beach Collective Association -- a collective of medpot collectives and their attorneys, et cetera -- is asking the City to do, as outlined in a December 6 letter to Mayor Foster, the councilmembers, and the city attorney.Fall 2008: Assistant City Attorney Mike Mais tells The District Weekly that the City is taking a "wait and see" attitude as regards taking a medpot position: waiting and seeing how various SoCal medpot lawsuits played out.
August 2009: The initial draft of the City's medpot ordinance includes the medically unethical provision that collectives "provide [to the City] a list of … the qualified patients that belong to the collective."
November 2009: On her blog, Councilmember Gerrie Schipske proposes zoning and other restrictions that would have effectively made it impossible for collectives to operate in Long Beach. When asked about this possibility, Schipske told The District Weekly, "With the proliferation of dispensaries in L.A. County, [patients] can get it elsewhere."
February 2010: Shannon disregards a 5-4 council vote, passing a version of the ordinance because he does not believe it to be properly restrictive, in that it did not include a provision mandating that all medpot be cultivated within city limits (a provision that the court in the Pack case would later find to be illegal).
June 2010: "Honestly, I don't want any collectives," Schipske writes to a constituent. "I get too many complaints and as long as the drug is illegal, I can't support the City allowing them." (Those 26 words are the entire content of the e-mail in question; she would later say she was referring only to collectives in her 5th District.)
September 20, 2010: The City holds a lottery with a non-refundable $14,732 entrance fee for any collectives wanting to operate within city limits. (The high cost was said to defray city expenses related to instituting the ordinance, but the City never offered an explanation of why Long Beach would have far higher costs than any city in the country instituting the same type of ordinance.)
November 9, 2010: Despite having been one of the "yes" votes that in March passed the ordinance, Councilmember Patrick O'Donnell admits, "I don't want it in my backyard. I don't want it in my front yard. […] I just don't want it [anywhere]."
November 2010: Schipske conducts a survey of support for two further restrictions within the ordinance, as well as asking whether residents favored an outright ban. (Participants disfavored both proposed changes and a ban by margins ranging from 12% to 35%.)
January 2011: Despite the ordinance not yet being fully implemented, the council places further restricts the ordinance.
Spring/Summer 2011: The City cites numerous collectives for operating without a permit, despite the fact that the City never got around to issuing any permits.
But dollars to donuts says the City won't bite, because it never really wanted medpot collectives here anyways.
Sponsors
Curious- using legal analysis, can you explain how Shannon blundered?
http://www.lb-ca.com/home/
I think for future elections this should be one of the questions candidates are asked about. It will take a few years, but eventually we can get a pot-friendly council and mayor voted in.
I wonder how Schipske feels about gay marriage. Let's hold that law hostage on her behalf. Actually I'm pro gay marriage but I'm definitely becoming anti-Schipske.
Really Richard? Is that what you truly believe?
I believe that medicine should be used for just that. Medicine!
People who use marijuana for other than it's intended purpose is OUT OF CONTROL. I am sick of this F@#KN CRAP. When did we all forget how to be happy. I DON'T NEED WEED TO BE HAPPY. I KNOW HOW TO BE HAPPY ALL ON MY OWN. It's just F#$KING RIDICULOUS. We all know "What Time It Is". We all know why all those people go to the dispensary. Let's all be HONEST and GET REAL with it! For Pete's sake!! It's about time we all grew up and stop whining about our marijuana FIX.
In other words, the sick and disabled can suffer as long as they think they might win their elections.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs!
Why do you care if people smoke pot to get happy? Do you have a similar tirade for those who drink wine or eat chocolate to get happy? What's the difference. Alcohol, caffeine, chocolate, potatoes, pot - all of them have chemicals that work with receptors in the brain to cause some reaction - with pot, you get feelings of contentment and euphoria. Why does this fact cause you so much anger?
Let one of these people get sick, really sick and watch how quickly they change their attitude, to where they're willing to try anything to just "feel" a little better or normal. I've seen it happen, so believe me I know.
I'd be willing to bet almost everyone breaks a federal law at least once a week whether knowingly or unknowingly.
Get over yourself. Have some compassion and maybe an open mind.
Doot, totally with you - need some youth and new ideas in the city's leadership.
And Bubba's also right. Write to the liquor companies, tell them to stop lobbying against marijuana. If they could be a little bit visionary, they might see the potential instead of the threat. Kush Vodka anyone?
THERE WAS A COURT DECISION! The current ordinance is ILLEGAL. I havent heard ONE PERSON suggest what the Council should do. Jsut thumb its nose at the Feds?
Comparisons to women's suffrage and prohibition are dumb. It was NEVER illegal to allow women to vote; States could decide for themselves. No government body broke the law by extending women's suffrage.
Furthermore, no government body every tried to legalize and regulate alcohol sales during prohibition. Speakeasies were illegal and secret; no one took part in civil disobedience by drinking publicly.
There is no precedent for what you are asking the Council to do: Flout a court decision and openly participate in a Federal crime.
This issue has nothing to do with compassion, medicine, freedom, or any of that - not as far as this Council goes. These officials SWORE to uphold the law. Period.
If you want to legalize cannabis - which we certainly should do - lobby your CONGRESSPERSON.
Finally, as far as alcohol goes, beleive me, if herb is legalized, the beer companies will be the second in line to start growing and selling (tobacco will be first.) They could care less if it's legal or illegal.
Like it or not, marijuana use remains illegal as a matter of federal law. As with other federal laws in our past that ultimately proved immoral, unethical, or simply no longer representative of the true will of a majority of the electorate, the proper response is to amend or abolish the CSA, not to ignore it while it remains on the books or to enact state or local laws in clear attempts to circumvent it.
I support the abolition of the federal CSA altogether on the basis that it is comepletely outside the purview of the few specific and limited powers enumerated in the constitution that we grant to the federal government.
Whether a substance is controlled or not, and to what degree, should be a matter for the people in each of the states to decide for themselves. If CA wants to legalize weed, while NV chooses to not do so, this is precisely the way it should be. Then people can reside in whichever state they choose based upon the laws in this area that most reflect their personal preferences.
If a state chooses to not address the issue, then it should be a matter for the people in a given *local* jurisdiction to decide.
Because this more constitutionally-compliant approach is not likely to ever come about, we are left with the CSA **AS WRITTEN** until such time as we agree by democratic means to amend it.
Given that fact, neither CA nor LB has *any business* presuming to enact legislation that decriminalizes a substance that federal law has outlawed.
The Council can and should repeal its ill-advised medpot ordinance, just as it once repealed its equally ill-advised big box ban and just as it should also repeal its entirely nonsensical plastic bag ban.
Legitimate medpot patients in Long Beach can still acquire their medicine in neighboring jurisdictions that still permit collectives to operate.
I say let's leave the med-pot places alone and keep the plastic bag ban. Those are the two best things Long Beach has going for it. A little bit eco-friendly and a little bit pot-friendly. If the pot stores go and the plastic bags come back, the city loses at least 50% of its charm, IMHO.
Long Beach, California, and every other medical marijuana state is already not in compliance with federal law. Let the federal government make its move to close down the thousands of dispensaries across the country. Our fear of federal government's intrusion should not allow the city council to stop its citizens from buying a plant.
Actions that the City can take tonight is to listen to the collectives association's plan that will ensure collectives can stay in business and be in compliance with the Pack decision.
COURT DECISION. MUST COMPLY.
Suggestions?
The majority of the people I see shopping at the local "illegal" dispensary (illegal because they never obtained a permit in the first place, and have been flaunting in the City's face for over a year) are young adults that look, act and talk like they have nothing wrong with them other than they want to get high. I get tired of running them off from my private parking, of the graffiti, of the trash, and of the piss poor attitude they give when they are asked not to trash the property, and park where they park.
Crime?? My next door neighbor dispensary, just got robbed. There IS crime that comes with these dispensaries. Others suggest that they will have to go back to getting marijuana from the street dealer. Well, at least they were discreet and did not affect the law abiding "nice" neighborhoods, like they do now.
I support Robert Shannon and the disbanding of all dispensaries.
Here are the facts in the nutshell. This city attempted to take a liberal stance and put in place a method to monitor "collectives" as a business. Permits, hours of operation, etc.
Then, when someone didn't get into the lottery, they decided their own investment was more important than all medical marijuana patients in our local area and SUED THE CITY TO HAVE THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE RESCINDED - ironically, based on an argument that the ordinance was federally pre-empted.
Then- they got an appellate court to agree with them - and now they are angry with that result.
The effect, whether it was intended or not, was to put at issue ALL medical marijuana enterprises within city limits (and other cities are watching).
Medpot advocates - you got exactly what you asked for. Next time ~ you might want to be a little more careful with that. . .
TWODUDE: Even doctors have to do an exam before diagnosing illness. You think you can do it from across the street?
Tell me, what does a chemo patient look like? My brother just went thru cancer and rode his bike every day except the day after treatment. You would never have know to look at him. He was 28.
How about insomnia, what does that look like? Anxiety? Chronic pain? ETC ETC
If you think you can tell who's sick by looking at them, you are a bit uninformed.
Furthermore, physicians give recommendations, and the City has no purview over that process. If people have doctor's rec, they can get medpot, end of story.
Finally, do you think no one abused prescription drugs? Do liquor stores and bars attract crime? But you aren't calling for a ban on pharmacies, bars, or liquor stores, are you? Gee, why not?