11703 Los Nietos Rd. [map]
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Hours: Mon-Wed 10am to 8pm, Thu-Fri 9am to 9pm, Sat 10am to 8pm, Sun 10am 6pm
Phone: 562-699-8960
Covers the following zip codes in Santa Fe Springs, California: 90605, 90670, 90671
If you know of an event that you feel should be listed on our calendar, please send details to info@mjdispensaries.com ~Thank You
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Santa Fe Springs Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, Collectives and Cooperatives
The Springs Herbal Remedies
11703 Los Nietos Rd. [map]
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Hours: Mon-Wed 10am to 8pm, Thu-Fri 9am to 9pm, Sat 10am to 8pm, Sun 10am 6pm
Phone: 562-699-8960
Covers the following zip codes in Santa Fe Springs, California: 90605, 90670, 90671
11703 Los Nietos Rd. [map]
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Hours: Mon-Wed 10am to 8pm, Thu-Fri 9am to 9pm, Sat 10am to 8pm, Sun 10am 6pm
Phone: 562-699-8960
Covers the following zip codes in Santa Fe Springs, California: 90605, 90670, 90671
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
VIDEO: Concerned patient advocates speak out on dispensary ban at Westminster City Council Meeting
David and Marla James (of Americans for Safe Access) speak on a Medical Marijuana Ban at the Westminster City Council Meeting during public comment. February 23, 2011.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
EDITORIAL: No on Measure M - Medical Marijuana Sales Tax in Los Angeles
L.A.'s proposed tax on medical marijuana dispensaries would be an unfair and dangerous step.
Measure M is one of those voter initiatives that at first glance look a lot more straightforward than they really are. There are, after all, hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles — just look for the green crosses — that pay state sales tax but not city taxes. Measure M would make them pay their fair share and then some, by imposing a steep gross receipts tax. That sounds like a reasonable way to help the city avoid cuts in public services as it digs itself out of a budget hole. But it's a dangerous step.
State lawmakers and municipalities still haven't agreed on how to regulate a drug that the state considers medicinal and the federal government considers illegal, so cities are deciding for themselves. Several — including Oakland, Berkeley, Sacramento, San Jose and Long Beach — have already approved taxes similar to the one that would be imposed by Measure M. And yet the city attorney's office believes that Los Angeles "should not, and indeed legally cannot, allow and tax marijuana sales," and opines that passing Measure M "would be of little or no effect." How can that be?
At the heart of the question is whether or not medical marijuana dispensaries — or collectives, or cooperatives, or whatever they choose to call themselves — are for-profit operations. Back when Gov. Jerry Brown was California's attorney general, he issued an opinion that they can operate only as nonprofit cooperatives or collectives in which patients or their "primary caregivers" grow marijuana and supply other members. They can charge members for their cannabis, but only enough to cover their overhead costs. Yet Brown's opinion hasn't been tested in court, and there is no telling how many of California's storefront dispensaries are really operating as nonprofits. In December, the operators of a San Jose marijuana "collective" were charged with illegal sales and money laundering after police said they discovered two sets of books, one showing an operating loss and the other showing a profit of $222,238.
If marijuana collectives are genuinely nonprofits, they're exempt from city taxes. So why have Long Beach and other cities been able to tax them? Because to be considered tax-exempt charitable nonprofits, organizations have to register as such with the Internal Revenue Service, which is like sending a cable to the federal government to tell it you're distributing a product that Washington considers illegal. Very few, if any, medical marijuana facilities have done this, opting instead to pay local taxes.
Getting in bed with a quasi-legal industry has drawbacks. If city government became reliant on tax revenue from medical marijuana sellers, city officials would be less likely to pass ordinances restricting their operations and police would be less inclined to raid their establishments to check whether they're really running on a nonprofit basis. A decrease in such scrutiny would encourage more illegal for-profit dispensaries, which draw other kinds of crime. Prices for a drug that many people use to relieve suffering (even if others use it to get high) would rise, which is why legitimate patient advocates such as Americans for Safe Access oppose taxation measures.
We agree with Brown that medical marijuana should only be distributed by nonprofit cooperatives or collectives. If they're truly operating that way, it's unfair for the city to tax them, and if they aren't, they should be shut down rather than taxed. That's why we urge a no vote on Measure M.
Source: Los Angeles Times
State lawmakers and municipalities still haven't agreed on how to regulate a drug that the state considers medicinal and the federal government considers illegal, so cities are deciding for themselves. Several — including Oakland, Berkeley, Sacramento, San Jose and Long Beach — have already approved taxes similar to the one that would be imposed by Measure M. And yet the city attorney's office believes that Los Angeles "should not, and indeed legally cannot, allow and tax marijuana sales," and opines that passing Measure M "would be of little or no effect." How can that be?
At the heart of the question is whether or not medical marijuana dispensaries — or collectives, or cooperatives, or whatever they choose to call themselves — are for-profit operations. Back when Gov. Jerry Brown was California's attorney general, he issued an opinion that they can operate only as nonprofit cooperatives or collectives in which patients or their "primary caregivers" grow marijuana and supply other members. They can charge members for their cannabis, but only enough to cover their overhead costs. Yet Brown's opinion hasn't been tested in court, and there is no telling how many of California's storefront dispensaries are really operating as nonprofits. In December, the operators of a San Jose marijuana "collective" were charged with illegal sales and money laundering after police said they discovered two sets of books, one showing an operating loss and the other showing a profit of $222,238.
If marijuana collectives are genuinely nonprofits, they're exempt from city taxes. So why have Long Beach and other cities been able to tax them? Because to be considered tax-exempt charitable nonprofits, organizations have to register as such with the Internal Revenue Service, which is like sending a cable to the federal government to tell it you're distributing a product that Washington considers illegal. Very few, if any, medical marijuana facilities have done this, opting instead to pay local taxes.
Getting in bed with a quasi-legal industry has drawbacks. If city government became reliant on tax revenue from medical marijuana sellers, city officials would be less likely to pass ordinances restricting their operations and police would be less inclined to raid their establishments to check whether they're really running on a nonprofit basis. A decrease in such scrutiny would encourage more illegal for-profit dispensaries, which draw other kinds of crime. Prices for a drug that many people use to relieve suffering (even if others use it to get high) would rise, which is why legitimate patient advocates such as Americans for Safe Access oppose taxation measures.
We agree with Brown that medical marijuana should only be distributed by nonprofit cooperatives or collectives. If they're truly operating that way, it's unfair for the city to tax them, and if they aren't, they should be shut down rather than taxed. That's why we urge a no vote on Measure M.
Source: Los Angeles Times
NEWS: MMDS Acquires Patent for Medical Marijuana Patch
The Patch will be marketed under the trademark TETRACAN and is expected to be available at medical marijuana dispensaries across the United States by year's end.
MMDS future plans include development of manufacturing facilities in Europe for worldwide distribution of TETRACAN to jurisdictions which accept TETRACAN as a holistic, therapeutic adjunctive for management of chronic pain due to arthritis, the side effects of chemotherapy, multiple sclerosis and other chronic conditions.
The TETRACAN Medical Marijuana Patch is the first exclusively controlled and clear departure from marijuana's age-old delivery modality of smoking, and therefore (i) will block any black market product proliferation and non-taxable profiteering; and (ii) will open the door for MMDS research and development of other purely holistic products and delivery modalities.
MMDS is currently in discussions with The Medicine Wheel Project LLC for the distribution of TETRACAN and future associated derivatives in the Medical Marijuana States of California and Colorado.
Walter Cristobal, the Patch's inventor and a member of the Santa Ana Pueblo Tribe of New Mexico, stated, "I am excited to be working with MMDS to finally be able to bring the Patch and other new delivery systems like creams, gels and oils to people and animals in need of chronic pain management."
"MMDS is pleased to be working with Walter Cristobal to help him develop his innovative ideas as MMDS advances the research and development of TETRACAN holistic, therapeutic products," stated Jim Alekson, ADG Market Focus spokesperson for MMDS. "Through the advocacy and marketing efforts of MMDS, TETRACAN will become the dominant identity for Medical Marijuana across the United States and throughout the world." Mr. Alekson further stated that "The industry needs to shed the word 'marijuana,' focus on the holistic, therapeutic pain relief benefits of topical applications and through focused marketing efforts within the 15 Medical Marijuana States, eventually become acceptable to mainstream American society."
About Medical Marijuana Delivery Systems LLC:
MMDS is a company devoted to the advancement, research and development of medical marijuana delivery modalities under the trade name TETRACAN.
About The Medicine Wheel Project LLC:
The Medicine Wheel Project LLC is a company devoted to the advocacy of Medical Marijuana and advancement of a Medical Marijuana Industry-Wide Association aggregating substance and power in a unified national voice. For additional information, visit http://www.themedicinewheelproject.blogspot.com
SOURCE Medical Marijuana Delivery Systems LLC
Monday, February 21, 2011
NEWS: Joe Grumbine Talks About a Natural Stress Reliever Through Cannabis
Joe has been helping others heal with plant-based medicines far longer than the general public has understood the healing benefits of one of his most popular plants: cannabis.
A natural stress reliever, cannabis was used in his tinctures years ago when he first discovered an ancient recipe and saw how the liquid was a unique delivery method for those who needed the plant but didn’t know any other way to get it other than by smoking it.
Source: MedicalMarijuana411.com
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Change We Can Believe In? Not for Medical Marijuana Research
by Paul Armentano
It was nearly two years ago that the Obama White House issued its "Scientific Integrity" memorandum stating, "Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration."
Those of us involved in marijuana law reform welcomed the memo -- which came just months after the American Medical Association called for "facilitating ... clinical research and [the] development of cannabinoid-based medicines" -- and we hoped that it would stimulate the commencement of long-overdue human studies into the safety and efficacy of medical cannabis.
Those hopes were snuffed, however, when a representative from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the agency that oversees 85 percent of the world's research on controlled substances, reaffirmed its longstanding "no medi-pot" policy to The New York Times. "As the National Institute on Drug Abuse, our focus is primarily on the negative consequences of marijuana use," a spokesperson told the paper in 2010. "We generally do not fund research focused on the potential beneficial medical effects of marijuana."
A review of the U.S. National Institute of Health website clinicaltrials.gov shows that NIDA's kibosh on medical marijuana trials continues unabated. Though an online search of ongoing FDA-approved clinical trials using the keyword "cannabinoids" (the active components in marijuana) yielded me 65 worldwide hits, only six involved subjects's use of actual cannabis. (The others involved the use of synthetic cannabinoid agonists like dronabinol or nabilone, the commercially marketed marijuana extract Sativex, or the cannabinoid receptor blocking agent Rimonabant).
Of the six, two of the studies have already been completed: "Opioid and Cannabinoid Pharmacokinetic Interactions" and "Vaporization as a Smokeless Cannabis Delivery System," both of which were spearheaded by researchers (primarily Dr. Donald Abrams) at the University of California at San Francisco.
The four remaining studies are still in the "recruitment" phase. Of these, only two pertain to the potential medical use of cannabis: "Cannabis for Spasticity of Multiple Sclerosis," which is taking place at the University of California at Davis and is likely the final clinical trial associated with the soon-to-be-defunct and defunded California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research and "Cannabis for Inflammatory Bowel Disease," led by researchers at the Meir Medical Center in Israel.
Of the remaining studies, one focuses on the detection of cannabinoids and their metabolites on drug screens, while the other, entitled "Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Risk Taking and Decision Making Tasks," seeks to establish pot-related harms, hypothesizing that subjects "demonstrate poorer decision-making abilities and increased risk-taking behaviors" after smoking marijuana.
So much for the AMA's demand for clinical cannabis research.
By contrast, preclinical (animal) trials assessing the therapeutic efficacy of cannabinoids are occurring at a record pace. A keyword search on the search engine PubMed using the term "cannabinoids" yielded over 1,300 published papers in 2008, some 1,700 papers in 2009 and another 1,200 published last year.
While many of these studies highlight the ability of cannabinoids to manage a wide range of symptoms, even more intriguing are the results indicating the potential of cannabinoid intervention to halt the development of serious diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease and multiple sclerosis. Nevertheless, without abrupt changes at the highest levels of government -- changes that do not appear to be forthcoming despite this administration's public demand for "scientific integrity" -- scientists will indefinitely lack the human follow-up data necessary to adequately answer societal questions regarding cannabis safety, efficacy and proper dosage.
"Change we can believe in?" Not when it comes to studying pot.
Source: The Huffington Post
It was nearly two years ago that the Obama White House issued its "Scientific Integrity" memorandum stating, "Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration."
Those of us involved in marijuana law reform welcomed the memo -- which came just months after the American Medical Association called for "facilitating ... clinical research and [the] development of cannabinoid-based medicines" -- and we hoped that it would stimulate the commencement of long-overdue human studies into the safety and efficacy of medical cannabis.
Those hopes were snuffed, however, when a representative from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the agency that oversees 85 percent of the world's research on controlled substances, reaffirmed its longstanding "no medi-pot" policy to The New York Times. "As the National Institute on Drug Abuse, our focus is primarily on the negative consequences of marijuana use," a spokesperson told the paper in 2010. "We generally do not fund research focused on the potential beneficial medical effects of marijuana."
A review of the U.S. National Institute of Health website clinicaltrials.gov shows that NIDA's kibosh on medical marijuana trials continues unabated. Though an online search of ongoing FDA-approved clinical trials using the keyword "cannabinoids" (the active components in marijuana) yielded me 65 worldwide hits, only six involved subjects's use of actual cannabis. (The others involved the use of synthetic cannabinoid agonists like dronabinol or nabilone, the commercially marketed marijuana extract Sativex, or the cannabinoid receptor blocking agent Rimonabant).
Of the six, two of the studies have already been completed: "Opioid and Cannabinoid Pharmacokinetic Interactions" and "Vaporization as a Smokeless Cannabis Delivery System," both of which were spearheaded by researchers (primarily Dr. Donald Abrams) at the University of California at San Francisco.
The four remaining studies are still in the "recruitment" phase. Of these, only two pertain to the potential medical use of cannabis: "Cannabis for Spasticity of Multiple Sclerosis," which is taking place at the University of California at Davis and is likely the final clinical trial associated with the soon-to-be-defunct and defunded California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research and "Cannabis for Inflammatory Bowel Disease," led by researchers at the Meir Medical Center in Israel.
Of the remaining studies, one focuses on the detection of cannabinoids and their metabolites on drug screens, while the other, entitled "Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Risk Taking and Decision Making Tasks," seeks to establish pot-related harms, hypothesizing that subjects "demonstrate poorer decision-making abilities and increased risk-taking behaviors" after smoking marijuana.
So much for the AMA's demand for clinical cannabis research.
By contrast, preclinical (animal) trials assessing the therapeutic efficacy of cannabinoids are occurring at a record pace. A keyword search on the search engine PubMed using the term "cannabinoids" yielded over 1,300 published papers in 2008, some 1,700 papers in 2009 and another 1,200 published last year.
While many of these studies highlight the ability of cannabinoids to manage a wide range of symptoms, even more intriguing are the results indicating the potential of cannabinoid intervention to halt the development of serious diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease and multiple sclerosis. Nevertheless, without abrupt changes at the highest levels of government -- changes that do not appear to be forthcoming despite this administration's public demand for "scientific integrity" -- scientists will indefinitely lack the human follow-up data necessary to adequately answer societal questions regarding cannabis safety, efficacy and proper dosage.
"Change we can believe in?" Not when it comes to studying pot.
Source: The Huffington Post
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
VIDEO: Former cannabis collective operator would like some answers from San Diego City Council
Adela Falk, during "public comment", poses some unanswered questions to the members of the San Diego City Council regarding their stance on medical marijuana collectives in San Diego, California. [City Council Meeting on February 15, 2011]
NEWS: California Medical Marijuana Industry Seeks to Operate "FOR PROFIT"
In California, medical marijuana dispensaries are required by state law to operate as non-profit "collectives" of legal medical marijuana patients who simply cover the costs of distributing the plant or edible products made from it. In the aftermath of dozens of raids on dispensaries that were illegally profiting from the sale of marijuana over the last year, the medicinal marijuana industry is calling for new laws that would allow dispensaries to operate as for-profit enterprises.
Many industry advocates are saying the raids happened as a result of vague California laws that do not clearly define proper accounting procedures for dispensaries, allowable salary levels, or illegal profiting. The Sacramento Bee reports the opinion of one Hollywood attorney specializing in marijuana cases who said: "Unfortunately 'profit' isn't defined, and there is no definition of 'nonprofit.'" And Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) says that the radically different approaches to dispensaries- which are allowed to operate in some cities, but are raided in others- shows the need for clear, statewide regulations to create a more "cohesive response."
In addition to clearer statutes, lawmakers, advocates, and industry leaders are calling for the creation of some kind of statewide oversight panel to regulate marijuana dispensaries. Sacramento lawyer, George Mull is lobbying the State Legislature to create what he's calling a "California cannabis commission" to oversee all of California's dispensaries. If the state adopts some of these measures, especially permitting California dispensaries to operate as for-profit businesses, it will end up creating rules similar to those in Colorado, another state notorious for its booming medical cannabis industry.
I actually spent the month of January in Colorado, using some of my time there to investigate its medical marijuana laws and policies. I found the medicinal marijuana industry booming in the sleepy city of Boulder, Colorado, nestled among the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. I saw many (often creatively-decorated) dispensaries nearly everywhere I travelled. My good friend and host for the month, a graduate student at the University of Colorado, even showed me a campus coupon book, which contained coupons from a local dispensary for a "FREE JOINT" with any purchase, and "$10 OFF YOUR NEXT QUARTER OUNCE." I laughed and said:
"So this is what we can look forward to if marijuana becomes legal for recreational use everywhere else over the next few years."
Despite marijuana's strictly medicinal use as far as the law is concerned, the for-profit status of Colorado dispensaries is apparent in the conspicuous commercialization of the plant there. Suppliers and licensed physicians who can charge for clinic visits also seem all-too-eager to cash in on the profits by making it easy to get a physician's recommendation for a medical marijuana card. But is commercializing the drug no better than street "drug-dealing" as one California state official commented? Big pharmaceutical companies make enormous profits from an assortment of legitimate medicines every year.
The question is: why should cannabis be any different? And if it shouldn't be, is a whole new regulatory agency the best way for California to address the problem of raids on marijuana profits, especially as it works to streamline government to address a budget in severe crisis?
Source: California Independent Voter Network
Sunday, February 13, 2011
NEWS: California Medical Marijuana Advocates Call for Statewide Regulation
Additionally, some medical marijuana advocates are pushing lawmakers to consider regulations – similar to those in Colorado – that would permit medical marijuana providers to operate as for-profit businesses.
Currently, under California law, dispensaries providing medical marijuana must operate as nonprofit "collectives" of registered medical marijuana patients who reimburse dispensaries for the costs of providing medicinal pot.
But medical cannabis in California has boomed into an industry generating an estimated $1.3 billion in transactions and paying hundreds of millions of dollars in salaries, rent and overhead costs.
Authorities, looking for illicit profiteering, last year raided scores of dispensaries in San Jose and Chico and prosecuted medical marijuana providers in San Diego County. The district attorney in Los Angeles, Steve Cooley, branded a local boom in medical marijuana outlets as "storefronts illegally pushing pot."
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, said he intends to introduce an "omnibus cannabis bill" to create a state oversight program to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries and all aspects of delivering marijuana to legal medicinal users.
Ammiano said the Legislature needs to clarify the rules due to the wildly divergent approaches towards dispensaries. They are embraced in some California cities and raided in others.
"In the context of suspicion by law enforcement, I think we need a cohesive response," Ammiano said.
Some medical pot advocates blame the raids on vague state laws that fail to define how dispensaries should account for cash flow, what they may pay in salaries and what constitutes illegal profits.
"Unfortunately 'profit' isn't defined," said Allison Margolin, a West Hollywood attorney specializing in marijuana cases. "And there is no definition of nonprofit."
The issue has played out dramatically in San Jose, where Santa Clara County arrested dozens of dispensary operators in raids seeking evidence of illegal profiteering.
One pot store operator was charged with felony money-laundering and possession of marijuana for sale. While no others have been charged, the raids stirred widespread protests among medical marijuana advocates.
"You can't just go in with guns and arrest people," said Lauren Vasquez, Silicon Valley director for Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy group.
New Santa Clara District Attorney Jeffrey Rosen, who took over last month, appears to be putting the brakes on the police crackdown. Rosen said he is awaiting updated guidelines from Attorney General Kamala Harris on state laws governing medical marijuana dispensaries.
Meanwhile, Rosen said, pot stores generally should be regulated through land use ordinances, not police actions.
"The voters of California have said they want sick people with documented medical conditions to be able to use marijuana to alleviate their symptoms," Rosen said. "The second thing is that the voters said that we don't want to legalize marijuana."
Sacramento attorney George Mull, who represents medical marijuana dispensaries in several California cities, is lobbying lawmakers to create a "California cannabis commission" to oversee marijuana stores statewide.
Marijuana outlets are treated as part of the urban fabric in Oakland and San Francisco.
Sacramento police consider them a low priority, but last week Sacramento County sheriff's narcotics officers raided a local dispensary, the Horizon Collective, alleging the operator illegally sold marijuana to people without medical recommendations. The Sheriff's Department also was investigating alleged profiteering at the dispensary. The dispensary claimed it was operating legally.
Mull said police raids will continue elsewhere as long as operators of some dispensaries are earning hundreds of thousands of dollars in pay and there are no state rules for bookkeeping or salaries.
"Should you make more money running a medical marijuana establishment than the governor of California?" he asked.
Mull is also advocating that California sanction a for-profit medical marijuana industry, arguing that a for-profit model will drive prices down and end confusion that can trigger police raids.
In Colorado, for-profit medical marijuana dispensaries pay licensing fees and are regulated by the state, with strict requirements for marijuana cultivation and security.
Cindy Besemer, the chief deputy district attorney in Sacramento County, said a for-profit distribution program is unlikely to be embraced by law enforcement.
"I certainly would say we don't believe in retail sales," she said. "That's drug dealing. I don't care how it comes down to it. That's what it is."
Source: The Sacramento Bee
Friday, February 11, 2011
NEWS: San Bernardino County commission delays vote on medical marijuana dispensaries
By Ryan Hagen
San Bernardino County planning commissioners, expressing concern they weren't getting an objective staff report on a proposal to ban medical marijuana dispensaries, decided Thursday to delay voting on the issue.
Over the next two weeks, two members of the Planning Commission will work with county staff to develop what they say would be a more balanced presentation of the proposal, which would affect unincorporated county land.
Commissioners also said they needed time to digest nearly five hours of comments from the public.
"Looking at this objectively, based on the fact that we have law enforcement's side, I want to look at it statistically, analytically from the other side - not anecdotes like we've mostly heard today," said Commissioner Audrey Mathews.
Most of those commenting were medical marijuana patients who said using it has dramatically increased their quality of life without the side effects of other drugs they had been prescribed.
Other speakers supported the staff conclusion that the county's moratorium on new marijuana dispensaries should be increased to a ban, based on what they said was the immorality of using marijuana and on statistics suggesting crime increased around dispensaries in other counties.
Dozens of opponents of the ban - which would prohibit growing marijuana outside or distribution by anyone except narrowly defined health-care providers - protested outside the County Government Center in downtown San Bernardino before the meeting.
"They're thwarting the will of the people of California," said Kathie Zamanjoromi, who owns a house in San Bernardino but says she began renting in Riverside because of its more permissive marijuana laws. "We're not criminals. I'm a grandparent, but before (receiving a marijuana prescription) I was on too many (prescribed) pills to function."
Because California allows marijuana use with a prescription, despite federal laws against it - and because of mental and physical relief she said no other medicine provides - Zamanjoromi said she and others will continue to use marijuana even if the San Bernardino County restrictions go into effect.
"I'm going to obtain my medicine no matter what," she said. "Either from Mexican drug cartels or from a responsible, regulated dispensary."
Several members of the Planning Commission suggested they might want to amend the proposal before they consider it Feb. 17.
They will then make a recommendation to county supervisors, who also must act quickly if they want to have a new policy in place before June, when the moratorium expires. State law does not allow the moratorium to be extended again.
The Board of Supervisors will accept only a strict restriction, predicted Paul Chabot, founder of the Coalition for a Drug Free California, based in Rancho Cucamonga.
"This battle is about the future of our kids. I'm impassioned to fight this," he said.
Riverside, Los Angeles and Orange counties have recently moved to ban marijuana dispensaries. Lawsuits soon followed.
Nineteen San Bernardino County municipalities have passed a ban, four have a moratorium and one, Chino Hills, effectively prohibits it with an ordinance against breaking federal law.
As a result, unincorporated lands risked becoming a dumping ground if the moratorium expires, county staff said.
Source: Contra Costa Times
San Bernardino County planning commissioners, expressing concern they weren't getting an objective staff report on a proposal to ban medical marijuana dispensaries, decided Thursday to delay voting on the issue.
Over the next two weeks, two members of the Planning Commission will work with county staff to develop what they say would be a more balanced presentation of the proposal, which would affect unincorporated county land.
Commissioners also said they needed time to digest nearly five hours of comments from the public.
"Looking at this objectively, based on the fact that we have law enforcement's side, I want to look at it statistically, analytically from the other side - not anecdotes like we've mostly heard today," said Commissioner Audrey Mathews.
Other speakers supported the staff conclusion that the county's moratorium on new marijuana dispensaries should be increased to a ban, based on what they said was the immorality of using marijuana and on statistics suggesting crime increased around dispensaries in other counties.
Dozens of opponents of the ban - which would prohibit growing marijuana outside or distribution by anyone except narrowly defined health-care providers - protested outside the County Government Center in downtown San Bernardino before the meeting.
"They're thwarting the will of the people of California," said Kathie Zamanjoromi, who owns a house in San Bernardino but says she began renting in Riverside because of its more permissive marijuana laws. "We're not criminals. I'm a grandparent, but before (receiving a marijuana prescription) I was on too many (prescribed) pills to function."
Because California allows marijuana use with a prescription, despite federal laws against it - and because of mental and physical relief she said no other medicine provides - Zamanjoromi said she and others will continue to use marijuana even if the San Bernardino County restrictions go into effect.
"I'm going to obtain my medicine no matter what," she said. "Either from Mexican drug cartels or from a responsible, regulated dispensary."
Several members of the Planning Commission suggested they might want to amend the proposal before they consider it Feb. 17.
They will then make a recommendation to county supervisors, who also must act quickly if they want to have a new policy in place before June, when the moratorium expires. State law does not allow the moratorium to be extended again.
The Board of Supervisors will accept only a strict restriction, predicted Paul Chabot, founder of the Coalition for a Drug Free California, based in Rancho Cucamonga.
"This battle is about the future of our kids. I'm impassioned to fight this," he said.
Riverside, Los Angeles and Orange counties have recently moved to ban marijuana dispensaries. Lawsuits soon followed.
Nineteen San Bernardino County municipalities have passed a ban, four have a moratorium and one, Chino Hills, effectively prohibits it with an ordinance against breaking federal law.
As a result, unincorporated lands risked becoming a dumping ground if the moratorium expires, county staff said.
Source: Contra Costa Times
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
VIDEO: David Zink on the medical marijuana dispensary case known as PAC vs Long Beach
David Zink during public comment at the Long Beach city council meeting shares some insight into a medical marijuana dispensaries case PAC vs Long Beach. From Tuesday, February 8, 2011.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Torrance Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, Collectives and Co-ops
Delta 9
1321 W. Carson St.
Torrance, CA
Hours: Mon-Sun 10am to 8pm
Phone: 310-618-3582
Harbor Area Caregivers Club {HACC}
22708 S. Western Ave. [map]
Torrance, CA 90501
Hours: Mon-Sat 10am to 9pm, Sun 10am to 8pm
Phone: 310-787-9004
South Bay Alternative (SBA)
1009 W. 190th St
Torrance, CA 90248
Hours: Mon-Sun 10am to 6pm
Phone: 310-225-6903
1321 W. Carson St.
Torrance, CA
Hours: Mon-Sun 10am to 8pm
Phone: 310-618-3582
Harbor Area Caregivers Club {HACC}
22708 S. Western Ave. [map]
Torrance, CA 90501
Hours: Mon-Sat 10am to 9pm, Sun 10am to 8pm
Phone: 310-787-9004
South Bay Alternative (SBA)
1009 W. 190th St
Torrance, CA 90248
Hours: Mon-Sun 10am to 6pm
Phone: 310-225-6903
NEWS: Proposed cannabis tax sparks a heated debate
Voters will face a familiar, burning issue on the March 8 city ballot: Marijuana.
In contrast with last November's failed California proposition to legalize recreational pot use, Los Angeles' more complicated Measure M asks if the city should impose a hefty tax on medical-marijuana dispensaries.
Proponents say requiring dispensary operators to "pay their fair share" - in this case, 5percent of gross receipts - could raise $10million a year for the city's deficit-plagued general fund.
Opponents claim the proposal won't fly because medicine and the nonprofit organizations that dispense it cannot be taxed, and they worry that if the city makes revenue from dispensaries, it will be encouraged to allow more of them.
While the two sides debate the details, voters may be guided more by their general attitudes, such as their overall feelings about marijuana, said Jessica Levinson, who analyzes ballot initiatives for the L.A.-based Center for Governmental Studies.
"It really comes down to what's important to voters," Levinson said. "If they think, `Yes, this is a measure that has problems, but people use medical marijuana and the city needs money,' then I think they would vote yes.
"If voters say, `Morally, we're against the sale of marijuana no matter what the use is,' or if they're for medical marijuana but think the current system is being abused, then they would vote no."
Measure M was placed on the ballot by the City Council, which is trying to climb out of a $350 million budget hole in the next fiscal year.
It comes as the smoke clears from last November's marijuana initiative battles.
California's Proposition 19 would have legalized - and taxed - up to one ounce of marijuana for recreational use by adults. The initiative lost 53.5-46.5 percent. Its backers are talking about trying again in 2012.
At the same time last year, voters in nine California cities - including Sacramento, Oakland and San Jose - approved medical-marijuana taxes similar to what Los Angeles is considering.
Signatures on the official "Yes on M" argument include those of City Council members Janice Hahn and Paul Koretz, and Pat McOsker, president of the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, Local 112.
"The city needs revenue. I know that as well as anyone," said McOsker, who says the Los Angeles Fire Department budget has shrunk to $495 million from $560 million two years ago, reducing the number of emergency responders by 156.
McOsker said United Firefighters' endorsement of Measure M doesn't mean it necessarily endorses medical-marijuana cooperatives, let alone recreational pot smoking.
"The voters of California decided (in 1996) that cooperatives are legal. What we're saying is they should pay their fair share (of taxes)," McOsker said.
The official "No on M" argument is signed by LAPD Chief Charlie Beck, Sheriff Lee Baca, District Attorney Steve Cooley and Council members Jan Perry and Bernard Parks.
"I think what we do (if Measure M passes) is we legitimize something that is against the law," Beck said in an interview. "Right now the law says we allow it to be dispensed because it's a medicine. We don't tax medicine. ... Let's be consistent."
Beck added: "These (dispensaries) are not good for your neighborhoods. If they become seen as a cash cow to (city officials) that are desperate, they're going to want more of them."
Measure M's opponents include the Oakland-based medical-marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, which contends a tax could make medical pot costlier for patients.
Source: Contra Costa Times
In contrast with last November's failed California proposition to legalize recreational pot use, Los Angeles' more complicated Measure M asks if the city should impose a hefty tax on medical-marijuana dispensaries.
Proponents say requiring dispensary operators to "pay their fair share" - in this case, 5percent of gross receipts - could raise $10million a year for the city's deficit-plagued general fund.
Opponents claim the proposal won't fly because medicine and the nonprofit organizations that dispense it cannot be taxed, and they worry that if the city makes revenue from dispensaries, it will be encouraged to allow more of them.
While the two sides debate the details, voters may be guided more by their general attitudes, such as their overall feelings about marijuana, said Jessica Levinson, who analyzes ballot initiatives for the L.A.-based Center for Governmental Studies.
"It really comes down to what's important to voters," Levinson said. "If they think, `Yes, this is a measure that has problems, but people use medical marijuana and the city needs money,' then I think they would vote yes.
"If voters say, `Morally, we're against the sale of marijuana no matter what the use is,' or if they're for medical marijuana but think the current system is being abused, then they would vote no."
Measure M was placed on the ballot by the City Council, which is trying to climb out of a $350 million budget hole in the next fiscal year.
It comes as the smoke clears from last November's marijuana initiative battles.
California's Proposition 19 would have legalized - and taxed - up to one ounce of marijuana for recreational use by adults. The initiative lost 53.5-46.5 percent. Its backers are talking about trying again in 2012.
At the same time last year, voters in nine California cities - including Sacramento, Oakland and San Jose - approved medical-marijuana taxes similar to what Los Angeles is considering.
Signatures on the official "Yes on M" argument include those of City Council members Janice Hahn and Paul Koretz, and Pat McOsker, president of the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, Local 112.
"The city needs revenue. I know that as well as anyone," said McOsker, who says the Los Angeles Fire Department budget has shrunk to $495 million from $560 million two years ago, reducing the number of emergency responders by 156.
McOsker said United Firefighters' endorsement of Measure M doesn't mean it necessarily endorses medical-marijuana cooperatives, let alone recreational pot smoking.
"The voters of California decided (in 1996) that cooperatives are legal. What we're saying is they should pay their fair share (of taxes)," McOsker said.
The official "No on M" argument is signed by LAPD Chief Charlie Beck, Sheriff Lee Baca, District Attorney Steve Cooley and Council members Jan Perry and Bernard Parks.
"I think what we do (if Measure M passes) is we legitimize something that is against the law," Beck said in an interview. "Right now the law says we allow it to be dispensed because it's a medicine. We don't tax medicine. ... Let's be consistent."
Beck added: "These (dispensaries) are not good for your neighborhoods. If they become seen as a cash cow to (city officials) that are desperate, they're going to want more of them."
Measure M's opponents include the Oakland-based medical-marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, which contends a tax could make medical pot costlier for patients.
Source: Contra Costa Times
Sunday, February 6, 2011
VIDEO: Montel Williams testifies before the Los Angeles City Council regarding medical marijuana
Montel Williams, a multiple sclerosis (MS) patient, shares his knowledge and personal insight of medical cannabis, safe access for patients and more at the Los Angeles City Council meeting held on January 21, 2011.
Northridge Dispensaries, Collectives and Co-ops
Cannamed of Northridge
9345 Melvin Ave. Unit 1 [map]
Northridge, CA 91324
Hours: Mon-Sat 11:00am to 8:00pm (Sun CLOSED)
Phone: 818-882-4849
Neighborhood Canna Store (NCS)
8323 Reseda #102
Northridge, CA 91324
Phone: 818-576-0420
9345 Melvin Ave. Unit 1 [map]
Northridge, CA 91324
Hours: Mon-Sat 11:00am to 8:00pm (Sun CLOSED)
Phone: 818-882-4849
Neighborhood Canna Store (NCS)
8323 Reseda #102
Northridge, CA 91324
Phone: 818-576-0420
NEWS: Man sentenced for OC marijuana dispensary heist
FULLERTON, Calif. (KABC) -- A 21-year-old Los Angeles man was sentenced to 54 years in prison for the attempted murder of a marijuana dispensary owner during an armed robbery.
Arsenio Collins and four others plotted to rob a Laguna Niguel medical marijuana dispensary in September 2009.
The owner of the dispensary saw the group approach his store and felt something was awry. He let Collins into the store, but locked the door before the others could enter.
Once inside the store, Collins pulled out a firearm, pointed it at the owner and two employees and announced, "This is a robbery."
At that point, the owner struggled with Collins, who fired his gun twice trying to shoot the owner. The shots went through a window and no one was hit. Collins tried to shoot the owner several more times, but his weapon would not discharge.
The owner and the employees were able to pry the weapon away from Collins, and he was arrested at the scene by responding officers.
Collins was convicted by a jury Oct. 4, 2010 of two felony counts of attempted murder with premeditation and deliberation, two felony counts of attempted robbery and two felony counts of assault with a firearm.
Three of the four co-defendants were also arrested, but the fourth was not identified.
Anyone with information regarding the fourth defendant is urged to contact the district attorney at (714) 834-5649.
Source: KABC-TV Los Angeles
![]()
Arsenio Collins and four others plotted to rob a Laguna Niguel medical marijuana dispensary in September 2009.
The owner of the dispensary saw the group approach his store and felt something was awry. He let Collins into the store, but locked the door before the others could enter.
Once inside the store, Collins pulled out a firearm, pointed it at the owner and two employees and announced, "This is a robbery."
At that point, the owner struggled with Collins, who fired his gun twice trying to shoot the owner. The shots went through a window and no one was hit. Collins tried to shoot the owner several more times, but his weapon would not discharge.
The owner and the employees were able to pry the weapon away from Collins, and he was arrested at the scene by responding officers.
Collins was convicted by a jury Oct. 4, 2010 of two felony counts of attempted murder with premeditation and deliberation, two felony counts of attempted robbery and two felony counts of assault with a firearm.
Three of the four co-defendants were also arrested, but the fourth was not identified.
Anyone with information regarding the fourth defendant is urged to contact the district attorney at (714) 834-5649.
Source: KABC-TV Los Angeles
Saturday, February 5, 2011
VIDEO: Cathy Bliss shares medical marijuana documentary with San Diego Planning Commission
Cathy Bliss, at the San Diego Planning Commission Meeting (January 20th, 2011), shares video from a documentary with medical professionals from California, speaking on the subject of medical cannabis and how it benefits the human body.
Friday, February 4, 2011
NEWS: Medical marijuana users protest over proposal in San Bernardino County
SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. (KABC) -- People lit up outside a San Bernardino County government center, protesting a cannabis dispensary ban.
The move comes as the county planning commission has reviewed reports that find neighborhood dispensaries attract crime, from theft to homicide.
The findings are one reason why residents in Skyforest don't want one in their community. Skyforest is an unincorporated community in San Bernardino County.
"What I'm going to recommend today is that if they want to have the dispensary, that they keep it 1,000 feet away from the school bus stop," said William Abell.
The planning commission voted Thursday to delay voting on the issue until a Feb. 17 meeting.
was expected to vote Thursday. If it is passed, the ban would go to the board of supervisors for their approval.
While the federal government says marijuana is illegal, California voters have passed initiatives that allow people to grow and use pot for personal medical use.
Many areas have imposed bans, including Los Angeles, Riverside and Orange counties.
The proposal would only allow medical marijuana distribution through hospitals and certain approved facilities. It would also expand the current moratorium on new dispensaries.
Another controversial element of the proposal is that if someone were to grow marijuana for personal use, it would have to be grown indoors. Outdoor cultivation would not be allowed.
Opponents say it would be so inconvenient that users would be forced to go underground to illegal dealers. They also argue that it would be a violation of their rights to access marijuana.
Dave Ele, a neuropathy and diabetes patient, said marijuana has helped him.
"It's like a light switch almost. It reacts to my condition almost within minutes instead of chasing it with opium," he said.
Source: KABC-TV Los Angeles
NEWS: Patient and advocates in San Diego are standing up and saying no more bans or restrictive ordinances
This is an effort of the San Diego cannabis community to acquire safe access for all qualified patients. Currently the city of San Diego has dragged its heels in an effort to make clear regulations in regard to medical marijuana centers. It’s looking like the city wants to impose a severe restriction as to where collectives can be. Out of the more than 100 zoning areas in San Diego the city officials will allow 5 of them The restrictions of 1000 feet from a school and church and other collectives will severely limit access to all qualified patients. If this ordinance that the city proposes is allowed then we have really cut our access to the medicine needed by qualified patients.
In an effort to end this madness, California Cannabis Coalition introduced the Citizens for Safe access ordinance. This will allow the collectives to operate. These are a few of the key points purposed as outlined by Jessica McElfresh, California Cannabis Coalition attorney:
• Medical Cannabis Centers will be allowed in most Commercial and Industrial zones as long as they are not within 600 feet of schools, playgrounds, libraries, or day care centers; within 500 feet of residential rehabilitation facilities or other Cannabis Centers or located in residential buildings.
• A cap will be placed on the number of Centers. Only those Centers with an approved Seller’s Permit issued by the California Board of Equalization on or before the date the initiative is approved for the ballot will be allowed to operate within the City.
• Centers that meet the cap requirement will be allowed a three year grace period to comply with the requirements of the initiative.
• Centers may relocate to any permissible zone at any time within the grace period as long as they meet the requirements of the initiative.
• Operators of Cannabis Centers may transfer ownership or control of their Centers at any time as long as the Centers continue to meet the requirements of the initiative.
• Center operators will be required to follow strict operational plans that require a detailed security plan, specific floor plans, limited hours of operation, and signage restrictions.
• The CSAO will authorize Medical Cannabis Centers to cultivate and dispense medical cannabis to qualified patients and primary caregivers.
• Persons with certain recent felony convictions may be disqualified from operating or working in a Cannabis Center. However, this does not include convictions for marijuana-related offenses.
• Minors (under 18 years of age) will not be allowed on the premises of a Cannabis Center unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.
• The consumption of cannabis or alcohol will not be allowed on the premises of any Center.
We need 100k signatures to get this on the ballot as of today we are on track to make the March 1st deadline to get it on the June Ballot.
Please support the CSAO for more information call 619-467-1235 or go to our web site www.calcc.info
Thursday, February 3, 2011
VIDEO: Greg Schultz testifies on medical marijuana laws in San Diego at Planning Commission Meeting
For more city council and commission videos from San Diego and other popular cities, please visit our YouTube Channel at: http://www.youtube.com/user/drherbalst
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
