I'm not calling for drug testing of elected officials but watching the City Council sometimes I think they must be high on something.
There they were Tuesday going around and around for the umpteenth time about "medicinal marijuana," listening yet again to repetitious pleas for LA to become a sanctuary city for potheads and fretting over how many, how far, how long and the minutiae of an ordinance they still don't understand.
There was the sober Senior Assistant City Attorney Jane Usher maternally answering the same questions about there is buffer between pot shops and residences, 500 feet from hospitals and schools and how there's a cap of 70 with loopholes for 116 more.
No, the law doesn't allow sales for cash. It's the compassionate use act for really sick people who can work together in a cooperative to grow pot and share it with each other. Nothing more, not the back door legalization and proliferation of 600 to 1,000 dispensaries the Council allowed to flourish.
Ed Reyes was rebuffed when he tried to end the latest round of posturing because Bill Rosendahl needed to puff up his chest and get something off it.
Cowards, he called his colleagues and everyone else who doesn't criminalizing marijuana had destroyed America. Crazy, he called them. He was a man in need of a sedative, Herb Wesson suggested since he violated the rules of decorum and mutual respect.
Paul Koretz was as confused as ever about the rules he was voting on and what they meant. Jose Huizar was absolutely against increasing the number of pot shops and then amended the Rule of 70 to allow up to 186.
Richard Alarcon was truly amazing for a man under criminal investigation for lying about living in the district he represents when he doesn't and then telling a ridiculous story about how a homeless nut broke into his abandoned house he claimed as residence, trashed it even as he was buying and installing new locks on the doors.
Surely DA Steve Cooley will need the help of Sherlock Holmes to solve "The Case of the Locksmith Squatter."
Alarcon seemed to want to close all the existing pot shops and let hundreds, maybe thousands, of hospices and elder care facilities to grow their own marijuana, presumably to keep the old and sick folks stoned instead of sedated.
If all that was bizarre and symptomatic enough of what's wrong at City Hall, Tony Cardenas stole the show with this one: He wants a "public option" like in national health care with the city getting into the business of growing and selling pot so it can reap the windfall profits and stave off bankruptcy.
Not to worry, the new pot law was a done deal even though they scorned Jane Usher and her boss, Carmen Trutanich, for showing them how to get out of the mess they created just as they did with the billboard fiasco.
The ordinance was approved 11-3 with Pro-Pot Rosendahl dissenting along with Bernard Parks and Jan Perry because they thought they might get too many of the 70 or 186 and destroy the street trade.
Finally, the LA City Council took steps Tuesday to bring an end to the proliferation of pot shops and get sale and distribution of medicinal marijuana under control.
The ordinance will come back for a final vote next Tuesday but implementation could still be many months away and most clinics facing closure likely will remain in business throughout this year.
The Council action comes 14 years after 55 percent of California voters approved the Compassionate Use Act, seven years after the Legislature enacted the Medical Marijuana Act and three years after the Council adopted an interim ordinance.
In theory, the ordinance caps the number of dispensaries at 70, an average of two for each of the 35 community planning areas (see chart below) or one for about 60,000 residents. But the size of the planning areas varies dramatically so some would not have any and others as many as five or six.
But the Council built in a number of variables to the cap, allowing all 137 to potentially stay open and allowing others that closed to possibly reopen under some conditions, bringing the number to 186.
A number of late amendments, proposed Tuesday after months of debate and endless hearings, were referred to committee for consideration.
For a list of how many pot shops are allowed in each of the 35 community planning areas, go to OurLA.org
There they were Tuesday going around and around for the umpteenth time about "medicinal marijuana," listening yet again to repetitious pleas for LA to become a sanctuary city for potheads and fretting over how many, how far, how long and the minutiae of an ordinance they still don't understand.
There was the sober Senior Assistant City Attorney Jane Usher maternally answering the same questions about there is buffer between pot shops and residences, 500 feet from hospitals and schools and how there's a cap of 70 with loopholes for 116 more.
No, the law doesn't allow sales for cash. It's the compassionate use act for really sick people who can work together in a cooperative to grow pot and share it with each other. Nothing more, not the back door legalization and proliferation of 600 to 1,000 dispensaries the Council allowed to flourish.
Ed Reyes was rebuffed when he tried to end the latest round of posturing because Bill Rosendahl needed to puff up his chest and get something off it.
Cowards, he called his colleagues and everyone else who doesn't criminalizing marijuana had destroyed America. Crazy, he called them. He was a man in need of a sedative, Herb Wesson suggested since he violated the rules of decorum and mutual respect.
Paul Koretz was as confused as ever about the rules he was voting on and what they meant. Jose Huizar was absolutely against increasing the number of pot shops and then amended the Rule of 70 to allow up to 186.
Richard Alarcon was truly amazing for a man under criminal investigation for lying about living in the district he represents when he doesn't and then telling a ridiculous story about how a homeless nut broke into his abandoned house he claimed as residence, trashed it even as he was buying and installing new locks on the doors.
Surely DA Steve Cooley will need the help of Sherlock Holmes to solve "The Case of the Locksmith Squatter."
Alarcon seemed to want to close all the existing pot shops and let hundreds, maybe thousands, of hospices and elder care facilities to grow their own marijuana, presumably to keep the old and sick folks stoned instead of sedated.
If all that was bizarre and symptomatic enough of what's wrong at City Hall, Tony Cardenas stole the show with this one: He wants a "public option" like in national health care with the city getting into the business of growing and selling pot so it can reap the windfall profits and stave off bankruptcy.
Not to worry, the new pot law was a done deal even though they scorned Jane Usher and her boss, Carmen Trutanich, for showing them how to get out of the mess they created just as they did with the billboard fiasco.
The ordinance was approved 11-3 with Pro-Pot Rosendahl dissenting along with Bernard Parks and Jan Perry because they thought they might get too many of the 70 or 186 and destroy the street trade.
Finally, the LA City Council took steps Tuesday to bring an end to the proliferation of pot shops and get sale and distribution of medicinal marijuana under control.
The ordinance will come back for a final vote next Tuesday but implementation could still be many months away and most clinics facing closure likely will remain in business throughout this year.
The Council action comes 14 years after 55 percent of California voters approved the Compassionate Use Act, seven years after the Legislature enacted the Medical Marijuana Act and three years after the Council adopted an interim ordinance.
In theory, the ordinance caps the number of dispensaries at 70, an average of two for each of the 35 community planning areas (see chart below) or one for about 60,000 residents. But the size of the planning areas varies dramatically so some would not have any and others as many as five or six.
But the Council built in a number of variables to the cap, allowing all 137 to potentially stay open and allowing others that closed to possibly reopen under some conditions, bringing the number to 186.
A number of late amendments, proposed Tuesday after months of debate and endless hearings, were referred to committee for consideration.
For a list of how many pot shops are allowed in each of the 35 community planning areas, go to OurLA.org
Ron Kaye
So Rosendahl's lover died in his arms smoking marijuana, and now the entire city should pay the price for that. How many Neighborhood Councils are in District 11. Do they approve this madness. Why are they never there at such meetings. We see the same 3- or 4 Neighborhood Council people speaking on such important issues that affect everyones quality of life. Kudos to these folks and shame on those Neighborhood Councils in District 11 and 5 (Koretz) who no doubt, spend the $45,000 on dinners and other petty things, than show up where they are needed.
Can someone explain what the f... Cardenas was asking the City Attorney about public option and City of LA parterning with pot places. The longer this goes on, the more bizarre the behavior of our fearless leaders, which if anyone was watching should result in their instant recall as being of unsound mind.
Have the boys and girls in City Hall, especially the Mayor wannabes, heard the thunderstorm originating from MA? The people are going to rise. Ron is right.
City Attorney Trutanich successfully disincentivised the Pot Shop proliferation...
Do you really believe that the Mexican Mafia Pot Shops in Los Angeles can sustain itself and adhere to the Ordinance's "Conditions of Operation", as shown below?
B. Conditions of Operation.
1. The location shall be monitored at all times by web-based closed-circuit
television for security purposes. The camera and recording system must be of
adequate quality, color rendition and resolution to allow the ready identification of
any individual committing a crime anywhere on or adjacent to the location. The
recordings shall be maintained for a period of not less than ninety days and shall
be made available by the collective to the Police Department upon request.
2. The location shall have a centrally-monitored fire and burglar alarm
system and the building or the portion of the building where the collective is
located shall contain a fire-proof safe;
3. No cultivation of medical marijuana at the location shall be visible with
the naked eye from any public or other private property, nor shall cultivated
marijuana or dried marijuana be visible from the building exterior. No cultivation
shall occur at the location unless the area devoted to the cultivation is secured
from public access by means of a locked gate and any other security measures
necessary to prevent unauthorized entry;
4. No manufacture of concentrated cannabis in violation of California
Health and Safety Code section 11379.6 is allowed;
5. No collective shall be open or provide medical marijuana to its
members between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. This prohibition shall
not apply to a qualified patient's use of marijuana for his or her own medical
needs if the qualified patient's permanent legal residence is the location;
6. No collective shall operate for profit. Cash and in-kind contributions,
reimbursements, and reasonable compensation provided by members towards
the collective's actual expenses of the growth, cultivation, and provision of
medical marijuana shall be allowed provided that they are in strict compliance
with State Law. All such cash and in-kind amounts and items shall be fully
documented in accordance with Section 45.19.6.4 of this article;
7. No persons under the age of eighteen shall be allowed at the location,
unless that minor is a qualified patient or person with an identification card and
accompanied by his or her licensed attending physician, parent or documented
legal guardian;
8. No collective shall possess more dried marijuana or plants per member
other than the amounts permitted pursuant to State Law. No collective shall
possess or provide marijuana other than marijuana that was cultivated by the
collective in strict accordance with State Law and this article;
9. The light fixtures required in Section 45.19.6.3 A.3, above, shall be
tumed on from dusk to dawn;
10. No collective may provide medical marijuana to any persons other
than its members who participate in the collective cultivation of marijuana at or
upon the location of that collective. No medical marijuana provided to a primary
caregiver may be supplied to any person(s) other than the primary caregiver's
qualified patient(s) or person(s) with an identification card;
11. No collective shall cause or permit the sale, dispensing, or
consumption of alcoholic beverages at the location or in the parking area of
the location;
12. No dried medical marijuana shall be stored in buildings that are not
completely enclosed, or stored in an unlocked vault or safe, or other unsecured
storage structure; nor shall any dried medical marijuana be stored in a safe or
vault that is not bolted to the floor or structure of the facility;
13. Medical marijuana may not be inhaled, smoked, eaten, ingested, or
otherwise consumed at the location, in the parking areas of the location, or in
those areas restricted under the provisions of California Health and Safety Code
Section 11362.79. This prohibition shall not apply to a qualified patient's use of
marijuana for his or her own medical needs if the qualified patient's permanent
legal residence is the location, nor shall this prohibition limit the exceptions
provided in local and state law that permit smoking in designated areas within
licensed residential medical and eldercare facilities;
14. Only members of the collective may be engaged in the management
of the collective. A person who has been convicted currently or within the
previous 10 years of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude, or who is currently on
parole or probation for the sale or distribution of a controlled substance, as
determined by the Police Department, shall not be engaged directly or indirectly
in the management of the collective and, further, shall not manage, handle, or
benefit from the receipts and expenses of the collective. Verification shall be
processed and received by the Police Department in accordance with the State
of California Department of Justice guidelines. No person may be engaged in
the management of more than one collective located within the City;
15. No qualified patient, person with an identification card, or primary
caregiver may be a member, at the same time, of more than one collective
located within the City, except that in the event of a medical emergency, a
qualified patient, person with an identification card, or primary caregiver may
obtain medical marijuana sufficient to meet that medical emergency from another
collective located within the City. In addition to all other required documentation,
for a medical emergency, the qualified patient, person with an identification card,
or primary caregiver shall provide written proof of the medical emergency and, as
applicable, his or her attending physician or doctor recommendation,
identification card, and, in the case of a primary caregiver, the patient designation
to both the member's collective and to the collective that is distributing the
emergency medical marijuana. This written documentation shall be maintained in
the records of both collectives;
16. Collectives shall not store more than $200.00 in cash ovemight at the
location and shall make twice daily bank drops that include all cash collected on
that day;
17. Collectives shall provide a state-licensed and uniformed security
guard patrol for a two-block radius surrounding the location during all hours of
operation. Security guards shall not possess firearms or tasers; and
18. Collectives shall operate and maintain an onsite 24-hour telephone
number at the collective for receiving complaints and other inquiries regarding
the collective. A member engaged in the management of the collective shall be
responsible for receiving, logging, and responding to these complaints and other
inquires. The log shall be maintained in the records of the collective.
19. The results of the testing performed pursuant to Section 45.19.6.5 of
this article shall be posted in a prominent location in the interior of the collective.
Also, the Ordinance keeps the Pot Shops away from children's areas and cannot be adjacent to residential zoned areas, as shown in the Ordinance's specs below:
2. The location of the collective shall comply with the following distance
requirements:
a. No collective shall be located within a 1OOO-footradius of a
school, public park, public library, religious institution, licensed child care
facility, youth center, substance abuse rehabilitation center, or any other
medical marijuana collective(s). The distances specified in this paragraph
shall be the horizontal distance measured in a straight line from the
property line of the school, public park, public library, religious institution,
licensed child care facility, youth center, substance abuse rehabilitation
center, or other medical marijuana collective(s), to the closest property line
of the lot on which the collective is located without regard to intervening
structures. This provision shall not apply to a collective that is also a
licensed residential medical or eldercare facility; and
b. No collective shall be located on a lot abutting, across the street
or alley from, or having a common corner with a residentially zoned lot or
a lot improved with a residential use, including a mixed use residential
building. This provision shall not apply to a collective that is also a
licensed residential medical or eldercare facility;
Under the most restrictive ordinances, of 1000 feet from "sensitive use and residential," adding the "residential buffer," ALL but maybe 4 of the still existing 127 "original" shops would have to shut down. As finally established by Koretz, who kept trying to pin down the CA's office and Planning Dept. which had various maps but not for that latest version under discussion. So far from being a time-wasting dummy as implied here, Koretz was as he said, trying to get his colleagues to understand the full implications of what they were voting on. Commenters pointers out there will be lawsuits stemming from shutting down all "legal" shops.
The other "silly" questions Ron notes here were actually on the whole doing something similar.
Even Zine asked if there's any regulation of price-gauging, and noted that if a shop is forced to close and reopen elsewhere at triple rent, the price will be passed on. Usher kept saying her view is all exchange of money is illegal, period. She can't answer how her idea of "collectives" with sick people planting pot, are going to get the money to pay rent and utilities and gas and other necessities, even if they could get people to work for free which is very unlikely. The whole cencept is nonsense and makes a farce of what voters meant by "compassionate use."
Too many things Trutanich-Cooley never thought of in real terms. Another one someone noted: if there are just a few "huge Costcos" of pot, and patients have to travel far to get there, each dispensary which now may serve 2000 people may have to serve so many times that, there will be long lines out the door for blocks and the neighbors WILL complain. And how "compassionate" will it be to make patients wait hours? Will they have to schedule appointments? Details details, the devil's always in the details.
10:13pm's argument about "huge Costcos" of pot," and "patients" forming "long lines out the door" is frankly vacuous. There are patients who need pot, and there are pot heads who just use the joke that is medical marijuana as a marginally more convenient drug dealer than they guy the used to deal with.
There's an excellent video on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paOp_6azqPw
that shows many of these so-called "patients" buying dope at a pot shop on Melrose - they all have cars and are able to drive, so please stop the nonsense about "patients" not being able to travel to get their fix.
Real patients can, and always have been allowed to grow their own, and please don't try and argue that it's hard to grow pot - it's not called 'weed' for nothing; it grows anywhere. Just ask Barney Frank - it was growing under his nose at his life-partner's house.
"Details, details" Yes. The marijuana advocates have politicized this issue. They care nothing for compassionate use, it's all about huge profits and getting high. Those are the details.
so why are there so many pot advertisements on this page? are they targetting patients or recreational users?
These council members behaved rudely, arrogantly and outright horrible when posing questions to the city attorney. Tony Cardenas even asking the question if the city could control these "drug shops" was beyond outrageous. Can they all really be this ignornant? They can't even do their own job yet they are asking for more responsibility. The tone in which they speak down to people should be enough to file lawsuits on creating a hostile environment which is against state law. Alarcon and Cardenas definitely have issues within themselves because they speak to people as if they were dogs. Alarcon and Cardenas most likely are extremely insecure men who think speaking to people with lack of respect makes them look big. Look in the mirror boys, it makes YOU look like the idiots
I am sorry but there are much bigger problems than people sparking a doobie. I love the very people who complain about overreaching government interference in citizens' lifes want to keep marijuana illegal. Legalize it, tax it and move on to real issues
10:12, from what I observed, people weren't complaining about weed as much as they were about the council's inability to make a decision on the issue. Personally I think the ineptitude is funny.
One councilmember asks if it's possible for the city to bankroll a pot clinic, another has to be reminded that federal law > state law, etc
10:12, the issue in front of the Council is not about legalization of marijuana, but its controls within constraints of the law. This is where the big disconnect is between City Attorney and the Clownicls who want to rewrite a law out of their jurisdiction.
5:50, if you understood even a little bit of the legal rulings, and Brown's own rather muddled paper last year attempted to interpret them, you'd know what everyone does who doesn't have a radical rightwing agenda: Cooley and his puppet Trutanich and then of course HIS puppets Usher and Carter (who is the one man I DO feel sorry for, he deserves better than having to "save" Trutanich on everything) are distorting the legal rulings to their most extreme, in Usher's case downright having lied about what Brown said, AND utterly ignoring the intent of the voters on Compassionate Use.
Leaving the Council to muddle through on their own essentially having to ignore Trutanich. Leaving Cooley to ignore THEM: "they're so irrelevant it's not even funny," he told the Times. Leaving MORE confusion in their wake.
When you have a City Attorney more intent on promoting his own pre-determined agenda AND his puppetmaster's the COUNTY DA's who, in his wanting to "look tough" for his run for AG, wants to mire us in lawsuits despite being a broke CITY, to pander to the handful of people who don't know any better, we've got total dysfunction and a city attorney who's essentially lost his credibility which is a bad thing. THAT was the take of the AP story on this issue which is running in numerous papers.
Even Zine has distanced from him. Maybe that's why he's let his beard and rim of his bald head grow out gray and his voice has gone hoarse and not as bellicose: to disguise himself.
11:19, we don't need your idiotic interpretation of the law, your arrogance and viciousness. Maybe you should run for DA or CA next time, since you are so frickin smart.
I can't even figure out what 11:19 was trying to say because his grammar was all fucked up
Teach us grammar too, while you are teaching the DA and CA how to do their jobs. And while at it, print your photograph so we can see your fangs and horns.
The above message was for 11:19 and not 1:06.
Advice to 1:06PM and to 6:07PM: Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig actually enjoys it.
I was thinking on this issue last evening and I searched the net for some information. Your blog came up in my research and I'm impress what you have wrote on this theme. As I'm currently expanding my search and thus cannot add further, however, I've bookmarked it and will be returning to further comment. Like I said, love this comment and will be back before long.