Pages tagged "Los Angeles"
- Message from the CA Director: No, it's not over yet
- State & Local News: National, California, Oakland, West Hollywood, Laguna Woods, San Francisco, Mendocino County, San Bernardino County, Lake County, Hanford
- Public Meetings & Events: Sacramento, Online, Washington DC
- Court Support: Oroville, Redding, and more
- Take Action Now: Pardon Dr. Mollie Fry, Support the Medical Marijuana Organ Transplant Act, and more
- ASA Website Spotlight: Vote Medical Marijuana 2014
- Chapter & Affiliate Meetings: San Diego
I got a FaceBook message after ASA reported that Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents raided two medical cannabis patients’ collectives in the Los Angeles area on Thursday: “I thought this crap was over???!!” Not yet, I am afraid. Federal interference and intimidation is still a reality in California, and there is reason to believe we will not see a change soon. Outgoing Deputy US Attorney General James M. Cole told the Los Angeles Times earlier this month that raids and other federal pressure would continue until California gets its “regulatory act together.”Read more
- Message from the CA Director: 5% used medical cannabis, 92% found relief
- State & Local News: Mendocino County, Humboldt County, San Jose, Los Angeles, Vallejo, El Cajon, San Diego, and more
- Public Meetings & Events: Richmond, Alameda County, Lincoln, Nevada City, San Diego, Fresno, Porterville, and more
- Court Support: Santa Ana and more
- Take Action Now: Tell Riverside County Not to Ban Cultivation, Support the Medical Marijuana Organ Transplant Act, and more
- ASA Website Spotlight: Work With ASA
- Chapter & Affiliate Meetings: San Francisco and Yuba County
Did you see the stories about a new study released last week about the prevalence of medical cannabis use in California? The study shows that 5% of Californians have used medical cannabis, and 92% of those report that it provided relief for a serious medical condition. This is big news. The research debunks the misperception that healthy people are overusing medical cannabis. Almost all of the 1.4 million Californians who have used medical cannabis used it successfully to treat the symptoms of a serious medical condition - chronic pain, arthritis, migraine, cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, muscle spasms, nausea, stress, and depression.Read more
- Feds Get Mendocino County to Turn over Medical Marijuana Records
- San Diego v. Medical Marijuana
- L.A. Wild West Medical Marijuana Ending
- Federal Dismissal of Medical Marijuana Asset Forfeiture Cases
- Whittier delays taking action on medical marijuana sales
- Medical Cannabis: Voices from the Frontlines (ASA Blog)
- SPECIAL EVENT - Saturday, November 16 - Safe Access Night with SF Bulls Pro Hockey
- Sign the petition for Jovan Jackson
- Fall Membership Drive: Become an ASA Member Now!
- California Patient Survey
- Wednesday, October 23 - Sebastopol
- Thursday, October 24 - Oakland
Free Online Services
- Legal Support
- Raid Center
ASA Chapter Meetings
- Sunday, October 27 - Nevada County (North San Juan)
After years of struggling over the issue, the Court of Appeal held that storefront dispensaries are legal under California law, so long as they operate on a not for profit basis and adhere to certain corporate forms. This decision establishes that storefront dispensaries are unquestionably legal under California law and that localities cannot continue to rely on their now-discredited view that all sales of medical marijuana are illegal in order to support their ongoing attacks on medical marijuana dispensaries.
Another important impact of the appellate court ruling is providing medical marijuana providers with a clear defense to state criminal charges. Specifically, the ruling held that in mounting a defense at trial:
Jackson was only required to produce evidence which would create a reasonable doubt as to whether the defense provided by the [Medical Marijuana Program Act] had been established.
The court further held that:
[T]he collective or cooperative association required by the act need not include active participation by all members in the cultivation process but may be limited to financial support by way of marijuana purchases from the organization. Thus, contrary to the trial court's ruling, the large membership of Jackson's collective, very few of whom participated in the actual cultivation process, did not, as a matter of law, prevent Jackson from presenting an MMPA defense.
Staff at City Hall does not expect to see initiative language from the City Attorney until just before the January 31 deadline for submitting ballot measures, so no one knows the details of City Council’s plan. Council Member Koretz’s motion instructs the City Attorney to base the voter initiative on a draft ordinance last vetted by the City Planning Commission on November 29. Known at City Hall as the “limited immunity” ordinance, that draft banned patients’ associations unless they met strict criteria, including opening before September 2007, locating 1,000 from sensitive uses, paying taxes, never having closed, and more. Council Member Koretz’s new motion instructs the City Attorney to add another 1% local tax on collectives and cooperatives – bringing the city’s total medical cannabis tax to 6%.
The first voter initiative qualified for the May ballot was submitted by the Committee to Protect Patients and Neighborhood (CPPN), a coalition that includes Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the Greater Los Angeles Collective Alliance (GLACA), and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 770. That initiative would only allow collectives and cooperatives that opened before September 2007, the date the city originally established a moratorium on new facilities. The initiative also allows the city to pursue permanent licensing for patients’ associations when there is greater clarity under state law.
A second voter initiative was submitted by a group of collective and cooperative operators recently organized under the name Angelinos for Safe Access. This organization has no connection to ASA, despite the surprising similarity of their name. The second initiative sets no upper limit on the number of facilities in the city, relying instead on location restrictions and other criteria to limit potential providers. This initiative was specifically designed to provide an opportunity for some of the hundreds of collectives and cooperatives that opened after the city’s 2007 moratorium to stay open. The second measure would also raise the existing city tax from 5% to 6%.
ASA remains committed to the voter initiative we helped create and submit as part of the CPPN patient-provider-worker coalition effort. We think it is the best option for preserving patients’ access and addressing the community’s concerns. We are confident most voters in Los Angeles will agree – including those who are ambivalent on this issue. Of course, we hope the city will create a ballot measure that we can all get behind. But we cannot afford to wait and see, especially given the City Attorney’s persistent opposition to any medical cannabis regulation in the city.
Patients and other voters will debate the pros and cons of each measure between now and May 21, when all three initiatives are likely to be on the ballot. ASA will publish more analysis and comparisons of each measure after the city publishes its version. In the meantime, there may still be time for residents of Los Angeles to influence the content of the city measure. ASA encourages patients and advocates to speak up to their City Council representative right now. Tell him or her what you do and do not want to see in a medical cannabis ballot measure. Do not wait for the City Attorney’s draft – there may be little time for debate and amendments before the submission deadline on January 31.
California Supreme Court picks February 5th for oral arguments to decide whether municipalities can ban local distribution of medical marijuana
Oral arguments in the Riverside case will be held in a special session of the California Supreme Court on Tuesday, February 5th at 10:15am at the University of San Francisco (USF) School of Law.
In addition to the Riverside case, a number of other appellate court rulings from southern California focusing on the same issues were granted review by the Court, including County of Los Angeles v. Alternative Medicinal Cannabis Collective, 420 Caregivers v. City of Los Angeles, City of Lake Forest v. Evergreen Holistic Collective, and People v. G3 Holistic.
Notably, two of these appellate rulings held that local officials may not ban distribution and must develop regulations instead. Specifically, the County of Los Angeles decision from July 2012 overturned a local ban on dispensaries, reversing the lower court’s preliminary injunction from the previous year. The appellate court in County of Los Angeles held that “medical marijuana collectives…are permitted by state law to perform a dispensary function,” and that “[Los Angeles] County’s total, per se nuisance ban against medical marijuana dispensaries directly contradicts the Legislature's intent.” The Court further concluded that, a “complete ban” on medical marijuana is “preempted” by state law and, therefore, void.
Yet, other appellate court decisions have sided with municipal governments in their cynical effort to push out any form of safe and legal access to medical marijuana.
Rest assured, however, that Americans for Safe Access will work with the lawyers in the Riverside case to obtain a ruling from the California Supreme Court favorable to patients across the state. Just as with its amicus ‘friend of the court’ brief filed last year in the Riverside case, ASA will continue to fight for safe access. “While municipalities may pass reasonable regulations over the location and operation of medical marijuana collectives, they cannot ban them absolutely,” read ASA’s amicus brief. “These bans thwart the Legislature’s stated objectives of ensuring access to marijuana for the seriously ill persons who need it in a uniform manner throughout the state.”
See you at USF next month!
Advocates are turning to the voter initiative process in Los Angeles because they are increasingly frustrated with the City Council’s progress on long-standing promises to protect access for patients. The City Council spent years creating an adopting a flawed ordinance in 2010, but numerous lawsuits (by patients’ associations and the city) rendered the measure unenforceable. After settlement talks with the City Attorney collapsed earlier this year, Councilmember Huizar introduced and quickly passed an ordinance that effectively banned all cooperatives and collectives in the city. CPPN mounted a successful voter referendum to force the repeal of the ban, but the city still has no regulations for medical cannabis.
Research conducted by ASA proves that sensible regulations reduce crime and complaints, while preserving safe access for patients. It is past time for California's largest city to enjoy the benefits of reasonable regulations. The City Council still has time to adopt a regulatory ordinance before the vote in May. A compromise ordinance, which would allow a small number of facilities in the city, was approved by the City Planning Commission last month. It is unclear if City Council Members are willing to approve it, and advocates want to be sure the voters are poised to act if the Council does not.
A separate medical cannabis voter initiative is in the signature gathering phase right now. It is possible that the City Council will be debating the compromise ordinance while advocates are gearing up to campaign for two separate measures. If either measure is approved, it will replace the city’s ordinance. If voters approve both measures, the initiative with the highest number of votes will prevail.
Stay tuned for an eventful winter and spring in LA!
In a separate motion authored by Council Members Herb Wesson and Jose Huizar, the City Council adopted a resolution asking the state legislature to “address inadequacies of state law” regarding medical cannabis. Some of the provision in the resolution call for the legislature to declare that financial transactions (sales) are not legal and that cooperatives and collectives must have local authorization to operate. Both of these were contentious issues in the long debate about regulations in the city, and both issues are currently before the California Supreme Court. The resolution also calls for enforcement against lenient medical cannabis doctors and a “finite list of conditions” for which cannabis can be used – a proposal that clearly violates the language of voter-approved Proposition 215. The resolution is not binding as law, and the state legislature is under no legal obligation to respond.
I want to say a special thank you to the ASA members and friends who helped gather more than 49,000 signatures to call a voter referendum on the ban, donated their time and money, and kept believing we could win. Thanks to grassroots persistence, we have another chance to secure the proven benefits of regulations for Angelenos. Special thanks is in order for our coalition partners – the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 770 (UFCW), which represents works at dozens of local facilities; and the Greater Los Angeles Collective Alliance (GLACA), the state’s oldest medical cannabis trade association. Both did a great job in gathering signatures, talking to City Council Members, and more.
Patients and advocates hope that the repeal will encourage City Council Members to adopt a new ordinance with which everyone can live. Otherwise, the city may have no tools to protect patients and neighborhoods from real and imagined harm. The City Council voted to create a new regulatory ordinance when they approved a motion by Council Member Paul Koretz on the same day that they voted for the ban. Now we need city staff to move quickly to finish the ordinance, get it to committees, and back to the City Council. There is no need for further delay. The voters of Los Angeles clearly want regulations, not a ban. The debate about this ordinance may be contentious, but it is past time to live up to years of promises to regulate medical cannabis in Los Angeles.
Enforcement actions against medical cannabis cooperatives and collectives in Los Angeles has already begun. There is no reason to believe that the ban’s repeal will stop the pressure. The Los Angeles City Attorney and District Attorney (DA) regard all of the city’s collectives and cooperatives as illegal, with or without a ban, and they are working to close them down. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) routinely raids facilities, and DA’s office has already prosecuted some operators. The City Council turned up the heat last month when they called in the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to help out. LAPD and DEA agents raided three collectives, filed civil asset forfeiture cases against three property owners who rent to medical cannabis tenants, and sent nearly seventy letters threatening other property owners.
ASA urges cultivators, providers, staff, and patients to know your rights and be prepared to assert them in the event of a raid by the LAPD and DEA. We are going to see a lot more of that before the dust settles in Los Angeles. Patients and advocates will hold a lively and peaceful protest of the recent attacks in front of the federal building on Thursday. You can meet ASA , UFCW Local 770, and GLACA in front of the Edward Roybal Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles at 1:30 PM. The federal building is located at 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
Thanks again for helping stop the ban. Now let’s roll up our sleeves and keep doing the kind of effective grassroots work that makes a difference. We will need you back on the phones, at City Hall, protesting on the streets… maybe even gathering signatures for a new voter initiative. Be sure to join ASA’s email list to stay up-to-date, and join us in person at the LA-ASA meeting on Saturday, October 20, in the Community Room (152) at the West Hollywood Gateway Mall located at 7100 Santa Monica Blvd., West Hollywood, CA 90046.
The referendum comes just in time. The ban would have become effective on September 6, but the successful petition drive puts enforcement on hold until the City Council rescinds the ban or voters have a chance to decide in March of next year. ASA and our allies on the Committee to Protect Patients and Neighborhoods hope the City Council will use the extra time to move forward with a motion by Council Members Paul Koretz and Dennis Zine to create a new ordinance that will allow for a smaller number of well-regulated patients’ associations in the city.
The City Council has been rattling sabers as the effective date of the ban approached. On August 22, the City Council approved a motion by Council Members Bernard Parks and Jan Perry instructing the Los Angeles Police Department to cooperate with the District Attorney (DA) and Drug Enforcement Administration in closing cooperatives and collectives. This would give the DA the chance to prosecute operators for felonies (as opposed to the misdemeanor specified in the ban), and raised the specter of federal prosecution. This week, the City Council referred to committee a new motion by Council Members Ed Reyes and Herb Wesson to divert funds from the City Attorney’s Community Redevelopment Agency budget to enforcement of the ordinance banning medical cannabis cooperatives and collectives.
The city’s rush to enforce is misguided. They can avoid more confusion, delay, and litigation by sitting back down at the table with stakeholders to hammer out a compromise ordinance that works for everyone. Patients and operators agree with the majority of Californians who support regulating and controlling medical cannabis. They just want a sincere effort from law makers and a realistic regulatory framework. The city failed on both front in 2010, when they approved an unworkable and byzantine regulatory scheme that even Council Members had trouble deciphering. The referendum gives new incentive to do a better job with the Koretz/Zine motion for sensible regulations. Let’s hope the City Council takes advantage of this opportunity, so the referendum campaign can be a victory for everyone.
Stakeholders who want to learn more about the referendum and what comes next in Los Angeles should keep an eye on ASA’s Access Southern California Discussion Forum and plan to attend the LA-ASA meeting on Saturday, September 15, at 1:00 PM in the Community Room (#152) at the West Hollywood Gateway Mall, 7100 Santa Monica Blvd. (at La Brea Ave.), West Hollywood, CA 90046.
In a letter to Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, Mr. Elford points out that the California Supreme Court will soon rule on several cases that could clarify how cities can regulate medical cannabis and if they can ban cooperatives and collectives. California’s Appellate Courts disagree on these topics, so moving forward without instructions from the Supreme Court could be risky:
"Proceeding with enforcement of the ordinance while these issues are pending is premature and may subject you to a legal response."
Mr. Elford also points out that a voter referendum sponsored by the Committee to Protect Patients and Neighborhoods, of which ASA is a part, may soon render the ordinance banning cooperatives and collectives and criminalizing property owners moot:
"… there is underway a voter referendum campaign to repeal Ordinance 182190, which is likely to have the signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot in less than two weeks. Because Ordinance No. 182190 will become ineffective once the signatures have been certified by the City Clerk, it would be a waste of the City’s time and resources to implement the Ordinance."
Patients who operate medical cannabis cooperatives and collectives should share Mr. Elford’s letter with their property owners to let them know that the ordinance making them criminals is not here to stay. Patients and advocates are going to repeal the misguided ordinance and keep working to adopt sensible regulations.