.

Committee Approves 'Gentle Ban' of Marijuana Dispensaries

Full council will next hear the proposed ban, which was approved unanimously by the Planning and Land Use Management Committee on Tuesday.

The city of Los Angeles took a step closer Tuesday to banning medical marijuana dispensaries, while allowing patients to grow their own pot or get it from a licensed caregiver.

The council's Planning and Land Use Management Committee voted unanimously to approve a proposed ordinance that would ban all dispensaries in the city until the California Supreme Court rules on whether, and how, cities can regulate the distribution of medical marijuana. A ruling by the state's high court is not expected for at least one year.

The ordinance proposed by Councilman Jose Huizar would allow mini-collectives of three or fewer patients to jointly grow their own marijuana at one location and would allow patients to transport cannabis.

Huizar and fellow committee members Ed Reyes and Mitch Englander also
disapproved of a separate plan that would have the city refrain from prosecuting a set of about 100 dispensaries that follow strict restrictions on where they could operate, the hours they could be open, and requirements for tight security.

The committee, however, allowed the separate plan by Councilman Paul Koretz to move forward, citing a request by other council members to hear both plans at the same time before the full city council.

City officials have been trying since 2007 to regulate dispensaries and limit their number to close to 100. Early attempts led to an explosion in the number of dispensaries trying to establish before the city placed a cap on the total number of pot shops.

The city's effort to allow some dispensaries was thwarted by a ruling last October by California's 2nd District Court of Appeal, which struck down attempts by Long Beach to require marijuana collectives to register with the city and pay fees.

The court ruled that cities may pass laws restricting the rights of pot shops to operate, but regulations affirming the right for dispensaries to exist violate federal law, under which marijuana is listed as an illegal drug banned for all purposes.

Huizar said his plan, dubbed a "gentle ban" by the City Attorney's Office, is necessary because of poorly written state laws that do not allow dispensaries and provide too broad of a description of who can qualify for a medical marijuana prescription.

"If you don't like the state law, let's change the state law," Huizar told the committee and an audience of about two dozen marijuana advocates.

Attorney Steven Lubell, who represents dispensaries in a lawsuit against the city, said he understands the growth of illegal pot shops is out of control, but disagreed that banning dispensaries is the way forward.

"You're cutting off access to the patients, which is against what Proposition 215 says," Lubell said. "Instead of totally banning and waiting for the supremes to rule, have some form of regulation that works in the interim."

Medical marijuana supporters told the council that growing medical-grade
marijuana takes years of practice and expertise that average patients do not have.

The two competing plans will be heard by the public safety committee as early as Friday before heading to the full council.

Stay connected with Hollywood Patch throughout the day on Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to our free daily newsletter for email updates.

Scott Zwartz May 31, 2012 at 03:05 PM
I recall that the bill's sponsor says that the bill does not prohibit sales of Pot that make a profit. However, the courts give opinion of the bill's sponsor little weight. First the courts look at the enacted statute's plain meaning, and if it is clear, then the plain meaning controls, unless the plain meaning is unconstitutional, pre-empted by federal law or over-ridded by another California statute that takes precedent. If the enacted statute is vague, then the courts have a variety of rules to interpret the statute. These rules are too extensive to set forth here and their application is unique in each case. Somewhere within the rules, however, the courts may look at the legislative intent. Generally, that intent is set forth in the findings of the Senate and Assembly notes and the comments of the legislative analyst. More likely than not, within those writings, the bill's sponsors' intention are set forth. When one considers the great harm which will befall ill people when the City cuts off their access to medical marijuana, one would expect that the City would give very heavy weight to the pain and suffering of the ill, many of whom are terminally ill. Rather, the city council requires that these people crawl from the death beds and scratch in the dirt to plant their own marijuana plants, or in the alternative, they will suffer in agony until their dying breath.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something