NEWS: In Long Beach City, Frustration Leads to Desperation in Solving Medical Marijuana Issue

LONG BEACH, Calif. - On March 21 at 4:41pm, plain clothes officers not providing identification of the Long Beach Police Department, along with Long Beach Department of Finance workers, initiated an illegal raid against NatureCann Non-Profit Patient Group. Acting without a warrant or court order, the officer incursion involved forcefully breaking into the patient collective where three (3) patient volunteers were assisting fellow patients. An observer recording the event outside of the collective was knocked down by an officer who told him the police "can do whatever they want." Scores of businesses along the Atlantic Avenue Corridor were disrupted by the police presence and activity.

Although no warrant was obtained by the department, and no resistance was offered by NatureCann, specialized assault equipment and armed tactics were utilized to force entry into the property. In an attempt to avoid being filmed and prior to making entry, an electronic video surveillance system designed to assist law enforcement was instead destroyed and disabled by the officers. Three (3) volunteers were abducted by the officers on-site while other officers arrested the collective's security guard at a nearby restaurant where he was on break.

When asked about the reason for the incursion and arrest, one of the female NatureCann patient volunteers who declined to be named for fear of reprisal said, "I was in fear for my life, looking at the end of a loaded firearm pointed at my head, by an unidentified intruder twice my size. They broke in and started attacking us. We follow all State laws and provide for seriously ill patients." It was later determined that the volunteers had been arrested under a city ordinance recently rendered invalid by a higher court.

In February, 2012, the Long Beach City Council enacted a ban of all medical cannabis patient dispensaries after its permitting ordinance requiring "substantial" and non-refundable fees was deemed unconstitutional by a California appellate court. Although the ban states it applies to all medical marijuana dispensaries in the city, dispensaries that had paid the substantial fee are not being targeted by authorities. The city announced it would enforce the ban only against patient groups that had not paid the fees. Days after Long Beach passed its ordinance banning all collectives, another California appellate court deemed similar bans illegal.

In June, 2011, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge found that an earlier warrantless raid by Long Beach police officers and officials was improper. Patients involved in that case have filed a suit against the city seeking damages. In addition to being arrested, the volunteer said the police had taken all of the patient group's medication as well as electronic equipment without inventorying or reporting the seizures.

For more information contact Sergio Sandoval,Director of Public Relations, Pappas Law Group,Phone #949-382-1485Email – sergio.sandoval@pappaslawgroup.com

Source: NatureCann

VIDEO: Long Beach City Council Postpones Medical Marijuana Dispensary Ban

NEWS: Glendale officially bans marijuana dispensaries

The City Council approved an all-out ban on medical marijuana dispensaries Tuesday night.

The ban, which was introduced last week, is slated to take effect Sept. 9, about two weeks before an existing moratorium prohibiting the dispensaries expires.

Current zoning codes have so far kept marijuana dispensaries at bay, but city officials, citing growing interest from collectives, have sought stronger language to keep them out.

Glendale’s ordinance uses zoning code to ban businesses that engage in any activity that violates federal, state or local laws from operating in any zone. The ordinance also identifies medical marijuana dispensaries as being banned in all zones.

Los Angeles passed an ordinance last year limiting the number of dispensaries to 70, exempting those in the city before 2007.

A lawsuit against Anaheim challenging its ban on medical marijuana awaits a ruling this month in Orange County Superior Court, which medical marijuana experts say could set a precedent. Still, Glendale officials have said they’re confident their ban is on firm legal footing.

Source: Glendale News Press

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.

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.

NEWS: Haze Clouds Laguna's Ban on Pot Stores

The California Coastal Commission rejected supporting Laguna Beach’s ban on storefront marijuana dispensaries last week and directed the city to rework its ordinance.

“It’s very unusual for the Coastal Commission to not approve this,” said City Manager John Pietig, adding that the commission has supported ordinances prohibiting commercial marijuana dispensaries in other cities.

In a 6-5 vote on Jan. 12, the Coastal Commission denied the city’s request to make changes to Laguna’s coastal plan, which included prohibiting commercial outlets for legalized cannabis throughout the city.

Commissioner Ross Mirkarimi of San Francisco, which has at least 15 legal marijuana stores, according to an internet check, led the discussion. He warned against potential legal entanglements should the Coastal Commission support a city’s decision to either prohibit or approve marijuana dispensaries.

“It implicates us in an issue that really is not pertinent to the Coastal Act,” Mirkarimi said in a later interview, suggesting that cities are e‹ ectively seeking “higher validation” for their actions. “ at’s a little disconcerting to me.”

Peter Douglas, the commission’s executive director, agreed that marijuana shops are of no concern to the Coastal Commission other than to recognize local government’s restrictions on land use.

Coastal Commission sta‹ had recommended approval of Laguna’s request.
Douglas said the commission approved similar requests from three other California cities, though he did not identify them and a follow-up query went unanswered.

Laguna Beach sought Coastal Commission approval because the city’s business district falls within the coastal zone regulated by the commission’s land-use rules. But receiving commission approval is merely a technicality, said Pietig.

The city will try to enact the ban under city code that is not subject to the local coastal program or Coastal Commission approval, Pietig said. In the meantime, “The city doesn’t need to issue a coastal development
permit to prohibit use,” he said, and the ban will remain in effect.

Laguna argued that nearby cities fulfill the needs of potential customers for legal marijuana. “The city of Lake Forest, which is adjacent to our city, does allow medical marijuana dispensaries,” Ann Larson, a city planner, told the commission.

“Although we may not have outlets right in our city limits, there definitely are dispensaries within very close proximity to Laguna Beach.”

“We’re not proposing to eliminate people’s abilities to operate under the law,” she said. “We just don’t want to have storefronts.”

But passing the literal buck to another community raised the ire of other commissioners. Commissioner Mark Stone of Santa Cruz said, “each community up and down the coast of California, in fact throughout California, needs to address the issue not by closing the door but by appropriate regulations.”

The commission directed Laguna Beach city staff to rework and resubmit the request.

Commissioner Markarimi said, “the Coastal Act never forecasted or envisioned that we would be having this discussion in the 1970s when the Coastal Act and the commission were birthed.”

Source: Laguna Beach Independent

NEWS: Pot Collectives Vow To Fight Further City Restrictions

The medical marijuana collectives facing elimination in Long Beach have vowed to keep fighting for their right to exist — in the face of a second reading to finalize the law this January.

During its Dec. 14 meeting, the City Council passed a first reading for the medical marijuana ordinance that will eliminate as many as a dozen more collectives. Many of those collective owners have come out publicly, or through an attorney, pleading with the council to allow for relocation.

Some collective owners said they are trying to remain optimistic they will get an opportunity to relocate.

The original ordinance was enacted in the late summer, eliminating many of an estimated 90-plus collectives through an application and lottery process. After the lottery, the number of potential collectives was reduced to 32.

Then in early November, Third District Councilman Gary DeLong, Fifth District Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske and Fourth District Councilman Patrick O’Donnell introduced an agenda item for further restrictions. The council decided to enact park buffers. It was believed then that an additional nine collectives would be eliminated with the newer restrictions added.

Vance Watson, president of One Source Discount Caregivers, 5115 Atlantic Ave., said he believes his operation has legal grounds to stop the city from shutting it down. His dispensary was a winner in the lottery earlier this year, but would be shut down by the new ordinance restrictions not allowing collectives near a park.

“They pulled the rug right out from under us,” he said.

Watson said he has been working with three different lawyers in regards to what types of action his dispensary can take, depending on whether the council passes a second reading with no changes from the Dec. 14 vote.

To some owners, the process has been discredited with the latest round of restrictions, which appear to single out certain collectives — including Herbal Solutions Naples, 5746 E. Second St.

In a statement released by ownership, Herbal Solutions accused the council of “trying to exercise their legislative powers in an unabashed attempt to change the outcome of the lottery.”

“This is not a minor issue and all citizens of the city should be concerned with the precedent that this amendment sets,” the statement says.

Watson said the City Council removing beaches from the definition of parks also has raised some eyebrows.

“Who benefits from them not including beaches?” he said. “Aren’t kids still at beaches? What kind of politicking is really going on behind the scenes?”

Ninth District Councilman Steven Neal initially brought up striking beaches from the definition during the council meeting. He said his intent has been to move forward with rules that follow the original ordinance as closely as possible.

“The city has been levied with several lawsuits to date, and any changes would add further lawsuits,” he said.

The removal of beaches from the parks definition is likely to spare one or two collectives, according to initial estimates.

DeLong said his intent with further restrictions were motivated by his constituents.

“My goal is to significantly reduce the amount of dispensaries and we accomplished that goal on Tuesday (Dec. 14),” he said. “It’s hard to predict the future, but I don’t expect any additional changes going forward. However, I do expect changes a year from now (when the moratorium on accepting applications ends).”

There is still some optimism that relocation will be allowed for the nine-plus collectives that are scheduled for displacement, Watson said.

“Everyone in my situation believes the city will allow for relocation,” he said.

Herbal Solutions also is holding out hope.

“Herbal Solutions Naples has publically offered to relocate its collective out of Naples in a good faith effort to address community concerns,” the statement said. “The city’s refusal to provide relocation is baffling and amounts to nothing more than a penalty and spot zoning. Herbal Solutions Naples remains hopeful that the council will vote to allow impacted collectives to relocate when the ordinance is considered again in January, but is prepared to take legal action to protect its rights in the event that the council insists on adopting an unjust and unlawful amendment.”

Watson said his lawyers are looking at the law in regards to vested rights issues and potential impact studies they feel the council should have authorized before voting on the law.

The City Council does have the right to revisit the issue in January (Jan. 4 is the next scheduled council meeting) before passing a second reading, assistant city attorney Mike Mais said. He said the city’s attorney’s office is confident the law will stand up in court regardless.

“We feel like we’re on legally solid ground,” he said. “We’ll do our best to defend it.”

Source: Gazettes

NEWS: Medical marijuana in Southwest Riverside County appears ‘up in smoke’ with recent decisions.

On Monday, Riverside County Superior Court Judge Mark Johnson ordered the Wildomar Patients Compassionate Group to close.

Stoking embers of controversy, SouthwestRivCo cities and Riverside County continue to fight against marijuana dispensaries.

Wildomar became the latest city to ban dispensaries, after a Riverside County judge ruled in its favor.

On Monday, Riverside County Superior Court Judge Mark Johnson ordered the Wildomar Patients Compassionate Group to close. A week earlier, Lake Elsinore City Council members voted to continue a moratorium on the businesses. Riverside County also reversed plans to allow dispensaries in certain areas and kept in place a county ordinance banning the dispensaries.

Wildomar Decision

Wildomar Patients Compassionate Group opened a dispensary in early December after filing a suit against the city. The group contends that the city’s ban on dispensaries contradicts state law granted safe accessing to medical marijuana.

The two sides were in court on Monday. Judge Johnson upheld the city’s ban and immediately ordered the existing Wildomar dispensary to close. The group’s attorney has stated he will file an appeal with the appellate court.

The city voted in 2008 to ban the dispensaries.


Lake Elsinore Decision

On December 14, Lake Elsinore council members continued a moratorium on dispensaries. The temporary ban dates back to Dec. 2009.

The city postponed a decision to wait and see the outcomes of legal proceedings and court ruling from other cities. At the time, the city wanted to see what leeway cities could have in limiting dispensaries.

The staff report for Tuesday’s meeting states the issue is still too undefined to take action on from a legal standpoint.

Riverside County

On the same day, that Lake Elsinore continued its ban, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors reversed plans to create zones where medical marijuana dispensaries could operate. Instead, supervisors decided to stick with an existing ban on marijuana shops.

The county had been working on zoning ordinances that would have allowed dispensaries in certain areas. The supervisors decided to stick with the current ban after watching neighboring counties enact bans.

Source: Southwest Riverside News Network

NEWS: San Jose council rejects plan to ban pot clubs

The San Jose City Manager's Office wants to take a hard line on medical marijuana, arguing that the city council should ban all 100 or so cannabis clubs in town and start from scratch with new regulations.

But on Monday, council members said: "Not so fast." In an 8-2 vote, they adopted a new 7 percent tax on dispensaries, as city voters approved last month.

The council put off for another day the burning questions of bans, caps on the number of cannabis clubs and even their basic legality.

Council members Pete Constant and Rose Herrera voted against the motion, saying the legality and regulation of the pot clubs needed to be resolved before taxation. Councilmember Kansen Chu was not present.

"We need the money, pure and simple,'' said Mayor Chuck Reed in support of the vote. He later added that he, too, was concerned that current city regulations seem to hold that all pot sales are illegal.

The vote came at the end of an impassioned special meeting. The council chambers were crowded with people arguing against any ban or heavy restrictions on what they insisted is legal medicine.

While relieved there was no ban, dispensary owners and medical marijuana movement leaders reacted with some dismay to the new tax, which will take effect early next year.

"Most people would be against taxing something that the city refuses to recognize as legal," said marijuana activist Lauren Vasquez, despite the overwhelming voter support for Measure U on last month's ballot.

Nearly 80 percent of city residents who weighed in on the question -- some 184,000 people -- blessed the measure, which proposed a tax of up to 10 percent of pot sales to help pay for city services like police, street maintenance, parks and libraries.

Still, the legal right to medical marijuana has become hugely contentious throughout the state over the last year. Dispensaries have proliferated since the Obama administration indicated it would take a softer stance on medicinal marijuana laws.

Without regulations, San Jose has gone from a handful of clubs to a hundred, even though they remain technically illegal under city zoning codes.

Even with the state coming up with legal guidelines, local jurisdictions have crafted a patchwork of ordinances to handle the issue. Several major California cities allow and regulate their marijuana dispensaries, including San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles. Some local towns, such as Gilroy and Los Altos, have banned them all together. Others, like San Jose, are still struggling with some sort of unified policy.

And to complicate an already complex issue, a local narcotics task force has begun a series of raids on the dispensaries, under the theory that they are profit-making and therefore illegal under California law. State guidelines and some legal precedent suggest that medical marijuana distribution should be non-profit, but what exactly constitutes a "profit" remains highly debatable.

During Monday's council meeting, Santa Clara County Supervising Deputy District Attorney Frank Carrubba -- who helped develop the city manager's plan to ban the clubs -- said he thought it was possible all the marijuana dispensaries in the state are illegal. Many in the audience responded with amazed laughter.

State voters in 1993 passed Prop. 215, decriminalizing marijuana for the treatment of medical conditions with a doctor's recommendation. But pot advocates and foes alike say the law is the most vague of any medicinal marijuana statute in the country.

It was from this legal foundation that many of the city administration's recommendations sprang. City Manager Debra Figone suggested the council ban the existing dispensaries, then hold a lottery and select up to 10 collectives to legalize and heavily regulate.

Each chosen collective would have to pay $104,645 registration fee. That money, Figone proposed, would pay for five additional city staff -- including three police officers -- to monitor and regulate the new collectives.

Under her plan, the collective also could not sell marijuana; instead, they could create pot sharing operations, with each member performing a duty.

But there was some cynicism toward the manager's proposal, especially in light of Measure U's seeming mandate. Councilman Sam Liccardo archly asked city lawyers how the collectives could pay for required security if they could not make any money from their operations.

Perhaps the most resistant to Figone's proposal was Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio, who has long championed regulating the cannabis clubs. He scoffed that he did not see how a bartering system for marijuana would work.

Oliverio had proposed his own plan to reduce the number of dispensaries to about 30 and create an ad hoc committee to bring forth a proposed ordinance.

The council rejected his plan for now. Instead, broader regulatory and legal issues were referred to the council's Rules Committee, which will take them up at an unspecified point in the future.

In the meantime, Oliverio said the passage of Measure U -- and the council's Monday vote -- will help winnow the number of local pot clubs. He predicted some dispensaries won't allow themselves to be audited and others won't pay the tax, so they'll be shut down.

"It's going to thin out the herd," he said.

Source: Mercury News

NEWS: Appeal likely in LA medical pot ruling

LOS ANGELES, Dec. 11 (UPI) -- A lawyer for 60 Los Angeles marijuana dispensaries says he expects the city to appeal a ruling blocking enforcement of new regulations on the pot shops.

Attorney David Welch told the Los Angeles Times the ruling would allow his clients to remain open pending further litigation on his lawsuit against the ordinance.

"It means they can't use strong-arm tactics such as arresting my clients and raids of the dispensaries to prevent my clients from going through the legal process," Welch said.

The Times said Saturday that the city attorney's office declined comment on the ruling, which was issued in Los Angeles Superior Court Friday.

The ruling involves a recent ordinance approved by the City Council that would only allow medical marijuana dispensaries that were registered with the city prior in 2007 to remain open. Scores of other such businesses would have to close.

The Times said Judge Anthony Mohr agreed the ordinance violated state and federal provisions for equal protection under the law.

Mohr also wrote in his 40-page ruling that grandfathering in the existing dispensaries was, in his opinion, a viable compromise. The city, however, has been trying to get a handle on a sudden boom in pot dispensaries around town.

Source: United Press International

VIDEO: Adela Falk's Presentation on Medical Marijuana to SD Council

Adela Falk's Presentation on Medical Marijuana before the San Diego City Council. From council meeting on November 9, 2010.

NEWS: Judge backs city in pot dispensary ban

RIVERSIDE - While acknowledging that this was "a troubling case for the court," a judge nevertheless ruled Wednesday that the city of Riverside is within its rights to use zoning laws to ban medical marijuana dispensaries.

"The city has acted within their authority," Superior Court Judge John Molloy said at the end of the hour-long hearing that pitted attorneys for the city of Riverside against medical marijuana activists.

Supporters of medical marijuana -- some of whom identified themselves as cancer patients -- filled the courtroom seats. Others were not allowed in because all seats were taken.

Molloy delayed enactment of the injunction sought by the city until Dec. 9, when attorney J. David Nick, representing the Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, will request a permanent stay.

Nick said he plans to file a notice of appeal Monday with the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

Riverside has gone to court to shut down medical-marijuana dispensaries operating within the city limits.

Wednesday's hearing was the first of seven injunctions being sought by the city.

City Attorney Greg Priamos said the judge's ruling reaffirmed the city's belief that it has the right to use land use ordinances to banish marijuana dispensaries.

"We're very pleased with the court's decision, and we're looking forward to enforcement of our zoning code against all dispensaries and collectives in the city of Riverside," Priamos said.

Priamos said Molloy's decision would allow the city to seek expedited court action against the six other dispensaries and the owners and operators would be advised in a letter to be sent next week.

Nick said Molloy's decision was not unexpected.

"I don't think local judges want to be seen as being the ones that allow medical marijuana dispensaries to exist," he said.

But under the California Medical Marijuana Program Act, dispensaries and collectives must be allowed to operate, although a city can regulate hours and locations, Nick said.

Marijuana is used to treat a number of medical conditions including nausea in cancer and AIDS patients and glaucoma.

Molloy said the issue puts cities in a strange situation, because state law allows the medical use of marijuana, but it's against federal law.

Priamos said the city is opposed to dispensaries and collectives, because they bring crime and blight.

"Other cities have had very serious criminal activity occur as a result of permitting these dispensaries," Priamos said.

On Tuesday, supervisors in Los Angeles and Orange counties banned medical marijuana shops operating in unincorporated areas.

William Sump, the president and general manager of Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center on Main Street in Riverside, said he planned to stay open at least until Dec. 9 when Molloy is set to decide on whether to grant a permanent stay.

"We have members who depend on us for access," Sump said.

The marijuana-patient collective on North Main Street has nearly 6,000 members, Sump said.

Source: The Press-Enterprise

NEWS: Long Beach pot law gets legal setback

COURTS: Judge must determine if city can regulate a federally illegal drug.

The future of Long Beach's medical marijuana regulations - and potentially of medical marijuana throughout the state - is in question after an appeals court ruling Wednesday.

The 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled that a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge must reexamine his decision Nov. 2 upholding Long Beach's new medical marijuana ordinance.

At issue is whether Long Beach's issuance of permits for medical marijuana collectives is a violation of federal law, which considers marijuana an illegal drug. That is exactly what the plaintiffs, medical marijuana patients Ryan Pack and Anthony Gayle, argue in their lawsuit.

The appeals court ruled that the lower court didn't fully address the matter.

"The issue of federal preemption was raised but not considered in the trial court," the appeals court says in its order. "This court believes that this is an important unresolved question that should be addressed."

Long Beach's law requires collectives to meet a range of requirements before they can be given a permit to operate. Among other things, the ordinance prohibits collectives from locating in residential zones, near schools or near each other, and it requires that the marijuana be grown within the city limits.

The appeals courts decision to stay the lower court's ruling doesn't have an immediate impact on the enforcement or enactment of Long Beach's law.

Matthew Pappas, the attorney for the plaintiffs, couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday, but City Attorney Bob Shannon didn't seem to consider the appeals court decision a loss.

"I am frankly relieved a court is finally addressing the elephant in the room - the elephant in the room being the impact that federal law has on state law," Shannon said.

Under a 1996 voter-approved proposition, California allows the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes if recommended by a doctor. Advocates say that cities and counties must provide patients with reasonable access to the drug, which is used by cancer patients, AIDS patients, those with chronic pain and others.

If the Los Angeles County court rules that Long Beach's ordinance violates federal laws, Long Beach would likely have to repeal or rewrite its ordinance.

The ruling could set a precedent for similar cases around the state, or if appealed, it could eventually work its way up to the state Supreme Court. Any decision there could have far-reaching effects on California's medical marijuana laws, possibly reinterpreting what state or local governments

"It's a bigger issue than just simply Long Beach's ordinance," Shannon said.

That, he said, is why it seems strange that medical marijuana advocates would use such a tactic in fighting Long Beach's regulations. The city is fighting five other legal challenges of the ordinance as well, but none of them uses federal preemption.

"Even if you accept the argument that there is preemption, how does it benefit medical marijuana advocates? It doesn't," Shannon said.

Long Beach is one of many California cities that have attempted to regulate or outright ban medical marijuana in recent years as the number of collectives and dispensaries has skyrocketed.

Almost daily, it seems, there are new developments in marijuana laws around the state.

On Tuesday, the County Board of Supervisors voted to create a ban on medical marijuana outlets in unincorporated areas of the city.

Last week, the Long Beach council voted to rework its ordinance to make it more restrictive by implementing new rules, such as prohibiting collectives near parks. The move, which came after months of debate over the initial version of the law but before permits had been issued, sparked an outcry from the local medical marijuana community.

Source: Long Beach Press Telegram

NEWS: OC to ban pot dispensaries in unincorporated areas

SANTA ANA, CA — Medical marijuana dispensaries are being weeded out of unincorporated areas of Orange County.

The county board of supervisors voted 4-1 Tuesday to ban the dispensaries after authorities said they were profitable businesses operating under the guise of treating the ill.

Supervisor Shawn Nelson cast the dissenting vote, saying the prohibition could help create a black market.

The vote came after a statewide ballot measure aimed at legalizing marijuana was rejected by voters on Nov. 2.

Los Angeles is considering easing tough new rules for medical marijuana dispensaries passed earlier this year.

A second reading on the Orange County the ordinance is required for it to take effect.

Source: The Associated Press

NEWS: Supervisors to vote on banning pot dispensaries in unincorporated areas

In an effort to slow the spread of medical marijuana dispensaries, the Board of Supervisors will vote Tuesday whether to ban the facilities in unincorporated parts of Los Angeles County.

The vote comes as Los Angeles and smaller cities throughout the region are working to limit the dispensaries' growth, raising concerns they may move into the unincorporated parts of the county where 1.5 million people live, said Paul Novak, planning deputy to Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich.

"Supervisor Antonovich is concerned about the impact of these facilities on the surrounding neighborhoods," Novak said. "You have nuisance issues, crime issues and people under the influence of marijuana driving through local communities." In other words, Not In My Back Yard.

But Kris Hermes, spokesman for the Oakland-based pro-medical marijuana group Americans for Safe Access, said the county hasn't experienced problems with the dispensaries and already has a 2006 ordinance in place that regulates and requires them to obtain conditional use permits.

"We as an organization have for years opposed outright bans on medical marijuana dispensaries and have gone to court on numerous occasions, the latest of which is a case stemming from a ban in Anaheim," Hermes said. "We have folks working on this in the Los Angeles area and they are mobilizing patients to express to the Board of Supervisors that a ban is not appropriate."

In 2006, the supervisors adopted land use regulations for medical marijuana dispensaries to distribute marijuana for medical purposes to qualified patients with a doctor's authorization.

Since then, more than 100 cities and nine counties in California have banned the dispensaries amid concerns about crime and other problems. Torrance, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and most other South Bay cities have either enacted bans on dispensaries or placed moratoriums on them.

In July, the supervisors directed the Chief Executive Office to work with the Department of Regional Planning to draft an amendment to the 2006 ordinance banning the dispensaries in unincorporated parts of the county. In September, the Regional Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment and voted to recommend approval of the change to the supervisors.

Although no dispensaries are currently operating in unincorporated parts of the county with a conditional-use permit, some are operating in violation of the county ordinance, said Karen Simmons, a supervising regional planner with the Department of Regional Planning.

"We have a zone enforcement task force that is currently looking into those and closing them up," Simmons said.

In 2007, regional planning commissioners turned down a permit application that would have allowed a medical marijuana dispensary in unincorporated Del Aire, at Aviation Boulevard and 118th Place near Los Angeles International Airport.

Source: Contra Costa Times

NEWS: Long Beach weeds out more medical marijuana sites

LONG BEACH - Nine more Long Beach medical marijuana sites will shut down under proposed amendments supported Tuesday by the City Council, leaving 28 total locations for dispensing or growing the drug.

The council reached a late-night compromise, voting not to fully support changes to the city's medical marijuana law that had been pushed by three council members, but still adding some new restrictions for marijuana collectives.

Most notably, the council didn't restrict marijuana cultivation to industrial areas nor limit the number of collectives allowed throughout the city, but it did create buffer zones around parks.

The council voted 7-2 to rewrite the law that it had approved in March, adding to existing rules that include prohibitions against collectives operating near schools, in residential areas or within 1,000 feet of each other, and a requirement that they must grow their marijuana within the city limits.

Supporting a compromise proposed by Councilman Robert Garcia, the council added several new rules, which were based off of a more stringent proposal by council members Gary DeLong, Gerrie Schipske and Patrick O'Donnell.

"I think what's being proposed tonight is overly restrictive," Councilman Robert Garcia said of the original proposal.

"We are talking about patients, and these are people that have been prescribed medicine and they have a right to access that medicine."

Under DeLong, O'Donnell and Schipske's proposal, collectives would have been allowed to grow marijuana only in industrial areas; wouldn't have been able to operate within 1,000 feet of libraries, child-care centers and parks; and would have been restricted to 18 operations citywide and two per council district.
Under Garcia's proposed restrictions that were approved by the council:

Collectives must submit audited financial statements and their annual state sales tax report to the city.

Collectives only be open from 9 a.m. to 7p.m. daily (this is a change from the original proposal that collectives close at 5 p.m.)

There will be a 45-day public review period followed by a hearing in front of the council for new marijuana collective applications, rather than just a public hearing.

No collectives will be allowed within 1,000 feet of parks.

Security cameras will be required on the outside of collective buildings.

A one-year moratorium on new collectives will go into effect.

DeLong calculated during the meeting that the changes would eliminate nine of the existing 37 marijuana sites.

O'Donnell and Councilman James Johnson voted against the motion because they wanted a stricter policy. Johnson said he feared that without limiting the number of collectives, certain parts of the city might end up with a proliferation of collectives.

"I just don't think it's fair for certain parts of the city to bear the potential burden of potential nuisance activity while others don't," Johnson said.

Tuesday's action requires the City Attorney's Office to rewrite the ordinance, but the council will have to vote on it two more times, giving the council two more chances to tweak the law.

Collective operators had already threatened to take legal action if the council changed the ordinance, and that had been one of the concerns of some council members going into the meeting.

Still, one question that concerned Councilwoman Rae Gabelich was how the city will be able to reimburse the collectives for their permit fees, which were $14,700 for a single collective, but that increased to $25,000 for those that had a separate cultivation site.

Long Beach officials used that marijuana permit revenue - over $700,000 in all - to help end the last fiscal year with a balanced budget.

"We couldn't tell you tonight where the money would come from on that," City Manager Pat West told the council.

Collective operators had mixed feelings about the new rules after Tuesday's meeting. Some were relieved that their collectives won't be affected, while others, such as Judi Farris, who runs Long Beach Natural Solutions collective at 726 W. Willow St., feared that more changes are to come.

"They (the council) can just keep doing it and doing it until there's no one left," Farris said.

Source: Long Beach Press-Telegram

NEWS: Pot ruling prompts revision of dispensary ban

COSTA MESA – A recent appeals court decision that cities should not invoke federal law as grounds for banning medical marijuana dispensaries has prompted Costa Mesa to revise its ban on the facilities.

The Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend a revision of the ban to the City Council.

The new ordinance would state that the city has never sought prosecution of medical marijuana dispensaries and "does not intend to do so in the future." However, it would leave misdemeanor and infraction penalties in place, even though the Fourth District Court of Appeal frowned on criminalizing dispensaries "solely on the basis" of medical marijuana activities.

The city's move came in response to the appeals court's decision Aug. 18 in Qualified Patients Association vs. City of Anaheim.

The court declined to decide the legality of dispensary bans for procedural reasons, and returned the case to trial court with instructions. Its ruling is not binding on cities.

The ruling does provide a view on the court's thinking on some aspects of the issue, such as federal drug law, criminal penalties, and what sort of regulations might be allowed.

The court rejected the idea of a conflict between state and federal laws on marijuana. Such a conflict would exist if the state required people to possess marijuana, but permission is not the same as a requirement, the court said.

Citing the decision in Felix Kha's lawsuit against the Garden Grove Police Department, the court ruled that no conflict arises "based on the fact that Congress has chosen to prohibit the possession of medical marijuana, while California has chosen not to."

It concluded, "the city may not justify its ordinance solely under federal law, nor in doing so invoke federal preemption of state law that may invalidate the city's ordinance."

Although state law prohibits criminal prosecution of medical marijuana groups under drug laws, the court said that it remains to be determined whether local governments may use nuisance abatement laws to ban dispensaries.

It suggested that some restrictions could be allowed, such as one on dispensaries that do not grow marijuana on-site.

The Costa Mesa ordinance, in response, would specifically ban dispensaries using off-site growers.

Current city law defines a dispensary as any one person involved with medical marijuana; the revision would change that to three people.

Commissioner Colin McCarthy was the lone no vote. He said the city was getting ahead of itself by aligning with the court's interpretation rather than waiting for binding orders.

Sue Lester, a council candidate who runs a dispensary, praised the commission for "taking the high road."

Source: OC Register

NEWS: Court fight over Long Beach medical marijuana law growing

LONG BEACH - The court battle over the city's medical marijuana law is growing.

Since Aug. 30, four marijuana collectives and two disabled men who use the drug for health conditions have sued the city challenging its medical marijuana law, which restricts the number and locations of collectives.

Last month, SJ Non-Profit Collective, Care Mutual Cooperative, Starlight Center and Long Beach Patients Center each filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court.

That brings to five the number of collectives that have sued the city.

Alternative Herbal Health Collective sued the city Aug. 16. A judge has denied its requests for a temporary stay of the law.

In addition to the collectives, two disabled individuals, Ryan Pack and Anthony Gayle, who have used marijuana for medical purposes, on Aug. 30 jointly sued the city.

SJ Non-Profit Collective is asking a judge to declare the law unconstitutional and bar the city from shutting down the collective, said the organization's attorney Christopher Glew.

"I think that the entire ordinance is unconstitutional," he said. City officials "are trying to regulate an area that is preempted by state law."

Long Beach City Attorney Bob Shannon said Monday that the city is within its rights to regulate medical marijuana.

"The city's stance is that what we're doing is legal," Shannon said.

Glew also is representing Starlight and Care Mutual, which each is demanding that the city return a $14,742 nonrefundable application fee required as part of the city's permit approval process.

Starlight and Care Mutual each paid the fee and submitted an application that city officials reviewed and wrongly declared incomplete, Glew said.

City officials "didn't even put them through the vetting process," and yet the city kept the money, Glew said.

The city says the fees were needed to cover expenses incurred during the permit approval process.

SJ Non-Profit Collective did not apply to take part in the permit approval process, Glew said.

In their lawsuit, Pack and Gayle are asking a court to invalidate the city's ordinance, which they argue conflicts with federal and state law.

An attorney representing Long Beach Patients Center could not immediately be reached for comment.

Long Beach Deputy City Attorney Cristyl Meyers noted that the courts so far have rejected the collectives' requests that they be allowed to continue operating until their cases are resolved.

That trend makes her optimistic that the city will prevail, she added.

Additional hearings are scheduled for Wednesday in two of the lawsuits, while other proceedings are scheduled for early next year.

Source: Contra Costa Times

NEWS: Council to weigh in on medical marijuana stores

There are 125 medical marijuana dispensaries in the city of San Diego but, technically, none of them are legal.

That may change.

The City Council on Monday will take a step toward addressing that situation by looking at a zoning ordinance that could allow some of the medical marijuana collectives to remain, while forcing others to move or shut down.

Medical marijuana supporters have been increasing pressure on the council to tackle the zoning issue since June, just after the county approved its rules for dispensaries.

Pressure increased over the summer as code enforcement officials answered complaints about dispensaries from across the county, with many of the stores receiving cease and desist orders.

Medical marijuana dispensaries are not a permitted use according to the city’s current zoning code. The only way a dispensary could comply with city rules would be for it to shut its doors.

However, that has not been the case for most San Diego dispensaries.

Only two of the city’s collectives have been closed. The rest are open for business.

The city of San Diego and other local governments have struggled to deal with dispensaries after the California voters legalized medical marijuana in 1996. The boom of dispensaries in recent years have led to efforts for a comprehensive solution.

Frederick Aidan Remick, the director for the Association of Clinical Dispensaries, said many operators are scared of what the future holds for their businesses. “There’s a lot of confusion right now,” he said.

Most of the collectives were initially cited for violations like improper electrical wiring or walls built without a construction permit.

Remick said the dispensary he’s involved with, the Higher Healing Patient’s Association, received a notice that it violated a few building codes, and should shut down. But when he and his partners consulted their lawyer, who told him to just fix the violations and keep moving on.

The city code violations had no connection to high-profile arrests at some pot stores across the county over the past year where authorities said the drug was being dealt illegally and not for legitimate medical purposes.

Monday’s proceedings are preliminary for deciding the zoning rules that will determine which dispensaries stay and which go. If the council chooses to move forward, the rules will have to go through the planning commission and then back to council for an official vote.

City officials said it could be early 2011 before the zoning rules are finalized.

“I think it’s important to say that the goal is to provide the legal guidelines to allow members of the public to comply with the law,” Councilwoman Donna Frye said.

The city’s Medical Marijuana Task Force recommends dispensaries should only be allowed in commercial and industrial zones and must be at least 1,000 feet away from school, playgrounds and other areas children frequent as well as other dispensaries.

To put that into perspective, most city blocks in downtown San Diego are about 300 feet by 400 feet. In essence, there could be a dispensary every two and a half blocks, as long as each met the other criteria.

Also, all of the dispensaries would have to show proof of non-profit status before being able to attain a business license.

For now, Remick and the 18 dispensaries that belong to his organization are trying to take regulation into their own hands.

To become a member of the association, a dispensary must meet 14 guidelines. The first item on the list is that a dispensary should try to follow the proposed guidelines of the task force.

Others include a clean interior akin to a doctor’s office and a discreet outward appearance to blend in with the community. In other words, no members will have a giant neon marijuana leaf in their storefront window.

Remick said he thinks membership could grow to 40 or 50 dispensaries later this year.

Patients like Earnie Ashwood, an El Cajon resident who regularly goes to Green Tree Solutions in San Diego to get marijuana to treat his migraine headaches and insomnia, are concerned about the legal issues surrounding the dispensaries.

However, he said it doesn’t deter him from going.

“I’m really trying to do this as legally as possible,” he said. “Legality is huge for me because I don’t use it recreationally. I can’t just take Vicodin for my migraines.”

When the issue was discussed in March before the council’s land use and housing committee, only Councilman Tony Young voted against creating an ordinance to go to the full council.

Council members Sherri Lightner, Todd Gloria and Kevin Faulconer all voted to move forward with the ordinance, but made a few changes to the original recommendations.

Source: San Diego Union-Tribune

NEWS: Board recommends not allowing medical marijuana dispensaries in Wildomar

Wildomar planning commissioners voted Wednesday to recommend that the City Council continue to ban medical marijuana dispensaries.

Commissioners said they had uncertainty about the results of a statewide proposition that would make marijuana legal for people older than 21.

The commission voted 3-2, with Harv Dykstra and Michael Kazmier dissenting, to recommend the council vote down a proposed law allowing dispensaries.

The commission has the power only to suggest whether the city should lift its 2-year-old ban on storefront marijuana facilities. It is now left to the City Council to decide whether to allow nonprofit dispensaries.

Just one city in Riverside County allows them: Palm Springs.

Wildomar's proposed law is modeled after a code used by the city of Laguna Woods in Orange County. It would allow dispensaries in commercial zones, away from schools and parks. It would not put a cap on the number of dispensaries.

Several commissioners recommended Wednesday that if the city allows dispensaries, it limit the number to two.

The council could alter the law if it approves the measure. Planning Director David Hogan said the council could take up the matter during its second meeting in September.

In an occasionally raucous meeting, advocates and opponents cheered and jeered speakers. About 35 people spoke, about 20 of them against dispensaries.

Opponents contended that allowing dispensaries would increase crime. Several shared personal stories about relatives who had struggled with drug addiction.

Tim Walker said he moved out of Los Angeles 30 years ago "to get away from this stuff."

"I don't understand how we could get to this point in this community," Walker said. "We need to make a stand because this is a conservative area and it needs to stay that way."

They also repeatedly criticized those speaking in favor as profiteers from other cities concerned only with opening businesses in Wildomar.

Many of those in favor were affiliates with already-existing private collectives or delivery services. The ordinance being considered would allow only nonprofit dispensaries.

Carlos Stahl has battled with Lake Elsinore over an unlicensed dispensary he runs there called R Side Medical. He told the commission he believed he was within his rights under state law and planned to open a location in Wildomar "whether this commission approves it or doesn't approve it."

"The people have spoken," Stahl, of Lakeland Village, said of medical marijuana. "This is nothing new. This is the majority."

Source: The Press-Enterprise