LA Committee Calls For More Input On Ordinance
| By DPFCA | Published January 28, 2009 |
The Los Angeles Planning and Land Use Management Committee (PLUM) delayed
consideration of a draft ordinance that would regulate medical cannabis
collectives today after hearing strong, and sometimes emotional, opposition
from the public. The City Attorney posted a revised version of the
controversial ordinance on the city’s web page last night, just hours before
the committee was to hear testimony. The latest draft of the ordinance bans
edible preparations and concentrates of cannabis outright, requires patients
who join collectives or grow medicine to register with the City Clerk’s
office, and requires that hundreds of existing collectives in the city close
until they are in compliance with the proposed regulations.
Chairman Reyes will convene a first of its kind meeting of stakeholders at
his office in one week to discuss the ordinance. Then, the City Attorney
will have 30 days to return comments or a new draft ordinance to the
committee.
ASA regards the ordinance as unworkable, because it is based on the faulty
assumption that storefront facilities maintained by patients’ collectives
are unlawful and can not be regulated. The City Attorney’s opinion is in
direct conflict with California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s guidelines
for medical cannabis published in August of 2008, which state, “It is the
opinion of this Office that a properly organized and operated collective or
cooperative that dispenses medical marijuana through a storefront may be
lawful under California law.”
Dozens of cities and counties in California have already adopted regulations
for storefront collectives and cooperatives, including Los Angeles County
and the City of West Hollywood. Research and experience shows that sensible
regulations reduce crime and complaints. Patients and advocates have rallied
behind Los Angeles City Council Member Dennis Zine’s efforts to regulate the
facilities.
The Los Angeles City Attorney has not kept pace with evolving medical
cannabis law. More importantly, he does not wish to legitimize medical
cannabis by regulating the facilities maintained by legal collectives. This
represents a deep-seated opposition that is all too common among our elected
officials. We can not let our optimism about likely progress in Washington,
DC, lull us into a false sense of security on the local level. Medical
cannabis opponents at the local level are still looking to roll back
patients’ rights. We must stay vigilant to be sure they do not.
