NEWS: Divided council's medical marijuana law draws patients' ire

LONG BEACH - Just when Long Beach's medical marijuana ordinance seemed a done deal, the City Council took another crack at it Tuesday night.

After months of lengthy meetings to try to come up with a way to regulate medical marijuana collectives, the council still had to do some serious negotiating and needed seven separate votes to finally approve the law 5-4.

The ordinance wasn't to the liking of medical marijuana advocates and collective operators, who after the vote called the law a virtual "ban" on marijuana.

Chief among their objections was that a requirement that all medical marijuana provided by local collectives be grown within the city limits would be too onerous and would make it difficult for patients to receive the marijuana they need.

Another controversial issue was the council's decision last week to expand school buffer zones for elementary and middle schools from 500 feet to 1,000 feet, as well as keep the 1,500-foot buffer zone around high schools.

Marijuana advocates said that adding on top of those rules a restriction limiting patients to being members of only one dispensary will leave patients with few marijuana options in Long Beach.

"If one collective doesn't have the medicine you need, you need to be able to go to another one," Madeleine Johnson of Americans for Safe Access said after the meeting.

The law also requires marijuana collectives to register with the city, provide the names and contact information of its managing members, and to take on-site security measures, among other rules.

The council began working on a way to control the proliferation of collectives in a September committee meeting, and has had meeting after meeting since then to work out the complex legalities of the issue.

On Feb. 9, the council approved the creation of a less restrictive version of the law that didn't limit where marijuana may be grown and restricted collectives from operating only within 500 feet of elementary and middle schools.

Then, after law enforcement officials and a representative of the District Attorney's Office gave a presentation to the council later that month, telling them that Long Beach should restrict cultivation to within the city limits in order to comply with state law and have an enforceable ordinance, the council delayed having another vote.

Last week, the council voted 5-4 to pass the law with the additional in-town cultivation rule.
The ordinance was agendized for a final reading Tuesday, but Mayor Bob Foster announced that the vote would be a first reading only, likely because there were enough substantial changes made to the law last week. That means the ordinance must still go back to the council for a final vote.

On Tuesday, council members weren't satisfied with this outcome, and they took a long and convoluted road to reach an agreement. Try to follow along.

Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal made a motion to approve the ordinance.

Councilwoman Rae Gabelich then made a motion to approve the law but to add a 2,000-square-foot size limit on marijuana cultivation and collective sites in commercial pedestrian corridors and to allow patients to join up to three collectives.

Councilman Gary DeLong made another substitute motion to approve the original ordinance but give collectives an extra six months (in addition to the 120-day grace period they were already to have once the law is signed by the mayor) in which to comply so that they would have time to grow enough marijuana for their patients' needs.

Each motion failed on either a 4-5 or 3-6 vote, but the votes didn't all fall along the same divisions on the council. Almost every council member cast a "no" vote on at least one motion.
Councilman Patrick O'Donnell next tried to find some common ground, making a new motion that integrated the original ordinance with the 2,000-square-foot building rule and giving collectives an extra four months to comply. Gabelich asked O'Donnell to add an allowance of two collective memberships for patients, but O'Donnell drew the line there.

It didn't matter, however, because the vote failed as well with a 4-5 split.

Lowenthal then tried her hand at bridging a compromise after she had voted against the previous motion. She moved to reconsider the vote, which the council decided voted 5-4 to allow.

Lowenthal made the previous motion again, but asked to remove the 2,000-square-foot restriction, leaving only the original ordinance and the extra four months for collectives to comply.

It wasn't done yet, though, because Councilwoman Tonia Reyes Uranga made a substitute motion to continue the matter to the next meeting. Her proposal failed 4-5, and Lowenthal's motion was finally approved 5-4.

Voting against the ordinance were Uranga, Gabelich and council members Val Lerch and Robert Garcia.

Source: Contra Costa Times

NEWS: City attorney candidates square off on medical marijuana, other issues at debate

LONG BEACH - The face-off between City Attorney Bob Shannon and his challenger, City Prosecutor Tom Reeves, may have been about the candidates' differences - they certainly disagreed on issues such as medical marijuana and sex-offender laws.

However, the candidates found some common ground Monday night as well, with both extending their criticisms away from each other and directing them at the City Council during a Long Beach Press Club debate at the Gaslamp Restaurant and Bar. The candidates, who are up for election April 13, took questions from a panel of journalists and from the audience.

"This is one of the poorer city councils that I've been involved with," said Shannon, who has been city attorney for 12 years, working as the city and the council's legal adviser. "They don't know how to disagree agreeably and it's very, very frustrating to see it, and I've told them to their faces, privately, in closed session, they need to start thinking like statesmen. They need to start thinking about the greater good."

Reeves, who as prosecutor oversees the prosecution of misdemeanor crimes, referenced an earlier discussion about creating local laws to regulate medical marijuana collectives in his critique of the council.

The prosecutor has adamantly stood by his belief that no money can legally change hands at the collectives, but the council has allowed for that in its proposed law, which went before the council again Tuesday night. He said he once sat in a room with the chiefs of staff of four council members and told them exactly that.

"Nevertheless, they got up from that table, went out and did exactly the opposite, and that's very frustrating," Reeves said.

Reeves gave a lengthy legal explanation Monday of why the council's proposed ordinance isn't legal, noting that he would take the money element out of the law. He also said he would require that all members of a collective register with the city - something that the council has rejected, instead only requiring managing members to register because of privacy concerns.

Shannon criticized Reeves' view, noting that there are legitimate medical marijuana patients who need access to the plant.

"Tom's position has been a very negative position," Shannon said. "He's told you all the things you can't do, all the things that shouldn't be done."

Shannon also took a shot at Reeves over the issue of how or if the city can control where registered sex offenders live after Reeves again launched into a complex explanation of the legal limitations.

"Tom sees this issue as a law-school question," Shannon said. "I see this issue as a quality of life issue. We went out into the neighborhood and solved the problem. Tom just said `no."'
Shannon was referring to the city's civil legal action last year against the owner of an Alamitos Beach apartment building that was filled with registered sex offenders and parolees, but a 2008 ordinance to limit where sex offenders may live had to be rewritten, making it weaker.

This last decision seemed to conflict with Shannon's earlier statements.

Shannon had said that Long Beach may very well be sued over the medical marijuana law, but that that shouldn't be a reason not to create an ordinance. Yet when a group of sex offenders threatened to sue over the ordinance regulating where they could live, Shannon backed down and rewrote it.

He explained that the California Supreme Court was still considering the issue of whether such a law could be retroactive, so he played it safe.

"It was a question that was up in the air, and I didn't think it was worth the gamble," Shannon said.

Reeves got a few licks in against Shannon as well, redirecting Shannon's criticism back at him over the McClure case, which in 2006 resulted in the largest payout that Long Beach has ever had to give - $20 million.

Asked about whether the City Attorney's Office should use costly outside counsel so frequently, Shannon said that it is sometimes necessary for the time and expertise involved, but Reeves criticized it, noting the McClure loss. Shannon said that at the time Reeves was working in Shannon's office and helped make the decision to use outside counsel.

Reeves said that incident has changed his mind.

"I learned from that," Reeves said. "I guess he didn't."

On another issue that has long been bandied about, Reeves said he stands by his past stance on keeping the city prosecutor and city attorney office separate, noting potential conflicts of interest. Shannon said he might be open to the idea of combining the offices, but he doesn't believe there would be much money saved by taking that step.

Source: Contra Costa Times

NEWS: Long Beach to consider medical marijuana regulations

Los Angeles has its much-contested pot dispensary ordinance. Now it’s Long Beach’s turn.

On Tuesday night, L.A. County’s second-largest city is likely to vote on its own sweeping medical marijuana regulations, which would cap the number of dispensaries at 18 -- two for each council district -- and require them to register and be licensed by the city.

Home to as many as 80 dispensaries, according to city estimates, Long Beach is the latest in a wave of cities across California that have tried to clamp down on medical marijuana distributors.

Under the ordinance, which is being considered for the first time in its entirety after months of debate, only medical marijuana dispensaries could grow the plant and would have to disclose their cultivation sites.

It also would require buffer zones of 500 feet to 1,500 feet around schools and bar dispensaries from operating within 1,000 feet of each other. In practical terms, the law would drastically reduce the number of dispensaries, which are currently unregulated, and limit them to major boulevards or industrial areas, City Atty. Bob Shannon said. The ordinance would take effect 90 days after it passes.

In January, the Los Angeles City Council passed some of the state’s toughest restrictions to curb the hundreds of dispensaries that have spread throughout the city.

Medical marijuana advocates sued the city last week, saying the regulations were so limiting they would require the vast majority of dispensaries, even law-abiding ones, to shut their doors.

Long Beach officials said their ordinance was designed to be less restrictive than Los Angeles'. No dispensaries would be grandfathered in, but Shannon said the criteria for choosing which ones get to stay has not been decided.

Still to be worked out is whether the city will restrict cultivation to within city limits, as recommended by law enforcement officials, or extend that to Los Angeles County.

Councilman Robert Garcia said Tuesday that he has concerns with such a provision, saying the limitation could bring an unwanted swath of pot farms to the city.

Nonetheless, he said he would support the ordinance if it broadened cultivation to include all of California.

"We have to make it accessible and fair and make sure the patients have access to it," Garcia said "But we also have to make sure the collectives are being good neighbors."

-- Tony Barboza

Source: Los Angeles Times

VIDEO: Randi Martinez speaks about her raid experience by LB Police on her medical marijuana dispensary

NEWS: Medpot Dispensaries Demand Equal Speaking Time

6:15am | As the Long Beach City Council has inched towards passing an ordinance regulating local medical marijuana businesses, some local collectives worry that the tables are being shifted in a direction that leads to unnecessary regulation akin to a recent ordinance passed by the City of Los Angeles.

Long Beach lobbyist Carl Kemp of the Kemp Group – who represents about ten local medpot dispensaries – says that supporters of medical marijuana collectives have not been allowed ample discussion and presentation time in front of the City Council.

His beliefs stem mainly from Mayor Bob Foster’s decision to offer public speakers on the issue two minutes to address the Council, instead of the normal three minutes, because that particular City Council meeting was running long. In addition, Kemp said Thursday, the Mayor’s office invited Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley – notorious for his hard stance against medical marijuana dispensaries – to address the Council during their upcoming Tuesday meeting.

Kemp made numerous attempts to secure equal time for a presentation, but had not heard back from the Mayor’s office with a response.

“You give [Cooley’s office] a platform to make their argument before a vote, and you don’t give anyone else the opportunity to give a counterpoint?” Kemp says. “That flies in the face of democracy, and it flies in the face of this argument that you’re trying to make sure that things are done right. You’re trying to make sure, in my view, that these things are done in the most restrictive way, and all but eliminate them from being in this city, when you’ve already agreed that they are medicine.”

In Kemp’s eyes, both moves could slow momentum that seemed to be leaning toward the approval of an ordinance that both the City and medical marijuana dispensaries agreed on. Restricting the allotted public speaking time and inviting an outside legal opinion are a hindrance, he says, to the hard work that has already gone into crafting a very intricate ordinance that seems to hold a majority Council vote to approve.

Taylor Honrath, a legislative aide to Mayor Foster, said that next Tuesday’s presentation would be made by staff from Cooley’s office and not the District Attorney himself, and that the intention is not to shift the Council’s decision one way or another but simply to share similar experiences with crafting an ordinance in Los Angeles and how it relates to the process in Long Beach.

Long Beach’s proposed ordinance is viewed as more collective-friendly than the one adopted by Los Angeles just a few weeks ago. Some collectives have threatened to sue Los Angeles for being too restrictive. In the past, District Attorney Cooley has promised to specifically target marijuana dispensaries for prosecution and publicly pleaded with the Los Angeles City Council to ban all sales.

“Their experiences with regulation, I imagine, will be part of the discussion and how Long Beach fits into the County,” Honrath said. “The District Attorney’s office isn’t coming in here to deliver an anti-collective message.”

Honrath said that the exact meeting agenda had not yet been finalized, but that worries from Kemp and his collective clients were unnecessary. The presentation from Cooley’s staff will not represent either viewpoint, he says.

Kemp says that he believes the City Council has been “extremely progressive” with their willingness to work fairly with medical marijuana dispensaries on several key issues. While there are several areas that he believes could be improved upon, Kemp said that overall his clients are pleased with the ordinance that has been crafted and seems close to Council approval.

The City Council was scheduled to issue a final vote on the ordinance during last Tuesday’s meeting, but the Mayor delayed the vote by one week, expressing concerns that dispensaries would not be required to grow their own marijuana on their property or purchase it within city limits – even though the City Council voted 5-4 the week prior not to regulate purchasing restrictions.

Foster says that the city may be making itself vulnerable by allowing dispensaries to purchase their marijuana from anywhere without restriction. But Kemp says that forcing them to grow on their own property would be near impossible with the water and heating demands that the plants require.

“If I were a property owner in Long Beach, I wouldn’t want medical marijuana grown in my property,” Kemp says. “Not because of any philosophical view, but because of what it might do to my building.”

In addition, Kemp says, requiring marijuana to be locally grown creates a safety risk because such places are commonly broken into. He expressed concern that those opposed to the ordinance had been proposing more restrictions in recent weeks, capped off by the Mayor postponing a final Council vote by one week in order to allow the office of a famously opinionated District Attorney to make a presentation.

Kemp says he understands the concern that Mexican drug cartels could benefit by selling marijuana to the dispensaries, but proposes that the ordinance include a regulation that they must purchase the product within the state of California and not specifically in Long Beach.

Source: LBPOST.com

VIDEO: Long Beach Councilwomen Schipske and Gabelich have difference of opinion on medical marijuana

VIDEO: Police Chief Blair talks about on-site cultivation of marijuana at Long Beach Council Meeting

February 2, 2010 Long Beach City Council Meeting: Long Beach Police Chief Blair talks about on-site cultivation restrictions for medical marijuana collectives at LB City Council Meeting. Also some comments from City Attorney Robert E. Shannon.

More city council videos on the topic medical marijuana »

VIDEO: Gary Ferris on medical marijuana ordinance before the Long Beach City Council - February 2, 2010

Gary Ferris, a medical marijuana patient of LBPRC, speaks on behalf of medical marijuana collective before the Long Beach City Council - February 2, 2010

VIDEO: Robert Fedor comments on medical marijuana at LB Council Meeting 02/02/2010

February 2, 2010 Long Beach City Council Meeting. Robert Fedor, representing LBPRC, comments on the latest medical marijuana ordinance for Long Beach, California dispensaries, collectives and co-ops.

VIDEO: Glen Howard of LBPRC speaks before LB City Council on medical marijuana ordinance 2/2/2010

NEWS: Long Beach Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Will Be Regulated

After a debate that started on Tuesday night and lasted into Wednesday morning, Long Beach now has an ordinance regulating medical marijuana collectives in the city.

But nobody thinks this ordinance will remain the same, likely even a year from now, due to council tinkering, court rulings and possibly the voters changing state law.

"This is going to be an evolutionary process," Mayor Bob Foster said. "No matter what (the City Council members) do, there will be unintended consequences… You are going to have to come back and make changes."

After another night of wrangling and emotional testimony, the City Council this week approved a new medial marijuana collective ordinance for the city. That ordinance puts no limit on the number of collectives there can be. However, it puts restrictions on where they can locate, among other things.

Existing clubs are not “grandfathered” in and will have to meet the new requirements or close. That led the owners of several collectives to come down and speak, saying that they are within the 1,500-foot limit for being near a high school and this would force them to close or move. Council members discussed adding a way that clubs could seek a variance on a case-by-case basis, but did not change the rules.

Most of the council debate was about whether collectives should only be allowed to sell what they grow on site. It was something the Long Beach Police Department suggested so the collectives were not buying from other sources and importing marijuana into the city. Other council members questioned how this would work in a practical sense and if it was really a good idea to have the collectives taking over larger retail spaces so they would have the room to grow marijuana in the back.

"I’m not sure how forcing them to grow (marijuana) in the city of Long Beach makes the city safer," said Seventh District Councilwoman Tonia Reyes Uranga.

On a narrow five-to-four vote, the council agreed with Uranga and lifted the growing restrictions. The four voting no (trying to keep on-site growing) were Second District Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal, Third District Councilman Gary DeLong, Fourth District Councilman Patrick O’Donnell, and Fifth District Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske.

The council stuck with other restrictions they had approved last week, plus added a couple of new ones suggested by City Attorney Robert Shannon and City Prosecutor Tom Reeves:

• Collectives cannot be located within 1,500 feet of a high school, 500 feet of any other school and 1,000 feet of each other. However, there are no restrictions on locations near a library, childcare facility or playground.

• Outlets can only be located in commercial or industrial zones, not in residential areas.

• Operators will need to apply for and receive a city permit, and to do so must show the organization is a collective (as defined by state law, a co-op structure where a few people grow for other members, but there is no profit).

• There can be no consumption of any products in any form on site.

• Marijuana at the sites can be tested by the city to see if it contains illegal pesticides that were used as part of the growing process and that cultivation records of where the marijuana was grown must be kept on premises.

• Collective members will have to show picture identification (such as a driver’s license) to pick up their prescription.

Opponents of this measure said that the city was treating marijuana as an illegal drug and not a medicine. Speakers said that the city should regulate this more like they regulate pharmacies than they do liquor stores, and that this was far more restrictive than what liquor stores face.

Shannon said before the meeting he thought this ordinance could withstand any legal challenge from people who thought it too restrictive. He said that this was done in accordance with existing state law and precedents.

However, that legal ground is shifting with measures moving through the courts, Shannon said.

Maybe the biggest change could come in November, when voters are expected to be asked about legalizing marijuana in the state. The petition expected to be on the ballot would allow up to one ounce of marijuana to be kept for personal use, and for a space of up to 25 square feet at a residence for growing. It would also allow the sale and taxing of marijuana.

The measure likely would bring a fierce campaign battle this fall, and if approved, a legal showdown with the federal government, which still classifies marijuana as an illegal drug.

But for now, Long Beach has its ordinance restricting medical marijuana.

Source: Gazettes

Los Angeles and Long Beach to continue talks on medical marijuana dispensaries

Tuesday, January 19, 2010, looks to be a busy day in Southern California for the medical marijuana community and local government as two cities continue discussions on their medical marijuana ordinances.

First stop, Los Angeles:
City Council Meeting at 10:00am
200 North Spring St. [map]
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 485-2121

Followed by, Long Beach:
City Council Meeting at 4:00pm
Council Chamber/Lounge
333 W. Ocean Blvd. [map]
Long Beach, CA 90802

Safe access to alternative medicine needs to become a reality, not just something that is talked about. There are too many people that suffer, while a minority gets to decide how much suffering they will inflict.

It is good to know, however, that both Long Beach and Los Angeles have some open minded individuals on their councils who recognize this challenge and are a voice of reason and a mouthpiece for the sick and the suffering.

Show your support for your family, friends and community by attending one or both events.

If there is anything on your mind that you may want to share with the council, then be sure to fill out a speaker/comment card before the meeting and speak your mind "respectfully" when your time comes.

IN THE NEWS: Police served warrants at 15 locations, 17 arrested on suspicion of illegal sales of pot

LONG BEACH - Police said Tuesday that search warrants were served at 15 locations in and outside of Long Beach last week in connection with an investigation into the illegal sale of marijuana at local dispensaries.

While specifics of the search warrants were still being kept under wraps, the Long Beach Police Department confirmed Tuesday that 15 search warrants were served and that 17 people were arrested during last week's operation.

Both the LBPD and the office of Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley confirmed last week they were working together on an investigation into illegal sales of marijuana at various medical marijuana dispensaries.

Sgt. Dina Zapalski, a Long Beach Police Department spokeswoman, said the department was not going to release the names of those arrested because charges have not yet been filed with the DA's office.

Because the people arrested are out of custody, authorities have time to finish their investigation and expect to bring charges sometime in the New Year, the sergeant said.
"There's a lot of information they're going over and there's still a large amount of evidence the detectives are sifting through," Zapalski said Tuesday.

The sergeant confirmed that warrants were served at 15 locations throughout Southern California.
Among those arrested, all of whom are either owners or employees of marijuana dispensaries, were nine Long Beach residents, four Garden Grove residents, two people from Anaheim, one person from Westminster and one Perris resident, she said.

Three marijuana dispensaries were searched last week. Two are located in Long Beach and one is in Garden Grove. All three are believed to be connected, the sergeant said.

Long Beach police Cmdr. Laura Farinella said last Thursday that the police department's Narcotics Division was working with other officers on the force and the district attorney's office to serve warrants at several locations that had generated numerous complaints from neighbors about illegal, over-the-counter sales of pot.

Chris Glew, an attorney representing a cooperative located on Fourth Street at Elm Avenue, said he has yet to see any documentation from authorities who served warrants at his clients' business and home, but he insisted the dispensary has always operated within the state's Compassionate Use laws.

Glew said last week that the district attorney and the police department "appear to be operating under the theory that everything is illegal, they seem to interpret any collective or dispensary is operating against the voter's initiative."

The initiative outlined by Prop. 215 - the compassionate use act that legalized marijuana for California patients suffering from debilitating conditions and disorders - was passed by voters in 1996.

Patients seek permission to use marijuana from doctors under both Prop. 215 and a follow-up 2003 law, which clarified the original proposition and ordered counties to issue identification cards to patients.

Arguments over how to distribute the drug, however, have simmered on national, state and local levels ever since the 1996 passage of Prop. 215.

Source: Contra Costa Times

IN THE NEWS: LBPD, DA saying little about search warrants at pot dispensaries

LONG BEACH - Police and prosecutors remained tight-lipped Friday about a series of search warrants served at local marijuana dispensaries Thursday.

The office of Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley confirmed Friday it is working with the Long Beach Police Department on an investigation into illegal sales of marijuana at various medical marijuana dispensaries, said spokeswoman Jane Robison.

"Because of the ongoing status of the investigation we can't say anything else at this time," Robison said Friday.

Long Beach police Cmdr. Laura Farinella confirmed for the Press-Telegram on Thursday that the police department's Narcotics Division was working with other officers on the force and the district attorney's office to serve warrants at several locations that had generated numerous complaints from neighbors about illegal, over-the-counter sales of pot.

Police and the prosecutor's office declined Thursday and Friday to identify the locations that were served in what authorities called an "enforcement" operation.

Officials said more information may be made public in the coming week.

Chris Glew, an attorney representing a cooperative located on Fourth Street at Elm Avenue, said he has yet to see any documentation from authorities who served warrants at his clients' business and home, but he insisted the dispensary has always operated within the state's Compassionate Use laws.

Glew, a criminal defense attorney who specializes in medical marijuana cases, said authorities couldn't have gotten it more wrong when they focused on the Downtown cooperative.
"These guys are the Mother Theresa of collectives," Glew said Friday, noting that the cooperative has pooled its resources to not only provide medical marijuana for its indigent members at reduced costs or free, the group has also helped install handicap-accessible ramps and related items in the homes of a number of its more infirm and elderly members.

He and other owners of local clubs - all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity - said officers served warrants not only at the dispensaries but at the homes of the cooperatives' owners and employees.

"They must have used at least 100 cops and for what? To hassle people who are compliant with a law that police or the DA don't like," said the owner of one local medical marijuana dispensary.

Glew made similar points, noting that the district attorney and the police department "appear to be operating under the theory that everything is illegal, they seem to interpret any collective or dispensary is operating against the voter's initiative."

The initiative outlined by Prop. 215 - the compassionate use act that legalized marijuana for California patients suffering from debilitating conditions and disorders - was passed by voters in 1996.

Patients seek permission to use marijuana from doctors under both Prop. 215 and a follow-up 2003 law, which clarified the original proposition and ordered counties to issue identification cards to patients.

Arguments over how to distribute the drug, however, have simmered on national, state and local levels ever since the 1996 vote.

"All this boils down to a pissing match between the city and Cooley," Glew added, referring to the district attorney's warning last month to Los Angeles city officials as they were discussing a marijuana ordinance for dispensaries in their city.

Cooley said in November that over-the-counter sales of cannabis are not allowed by either of the laws pertaining to medical marijuana.

In previous court cases, Glew said, the district attorney's prosecutors have made it clear to him that the district attorney's position is most of the people using medical marijuana are young and don't appear sick or injured in any way.

Glew, however, strongly cautioned against people relying on how someone looks to determine if they are a patient.

"There are plenty of people suffering with MS or HIV and you wouldn't know it to look at them," he said.

As for the charge about complaints regarding local dispensaries, Glew and other dispensary supporters said Thursday was the first time anyone had heard about complaints.

"I'd like to see some kind of record of the calls or letters or whatever they received," said a manager of one of the cooperatives.

Glew countered that if authorities are really concerned about people abusing the prescription identification system they should focus on physicians wrongly issuing the ID cards rather than the cooperatives, who serve all patients.

Glew, who recently won a case for one of the co-owners of the Downtown Long Beach cooperative who was charged in Riverside, added he is confident his clients in Long Beach will be vindicated as well.

"I work with a lot of cooperatives and this place is probably one of the most heavily checked, they verify all the patient's statements and they are in compliance 100 percent," he said. "To even insinuate (illegal over-the-counter sales were being made) is preposterous."

Source: Press-Telegram

NEW VIDEO: Long Beach Medical Marijuana Draft Ordinance, City Prosecutor Thomas M Reeves

November 10, 2009 Long Beach City Council meeting regarding proposed draft ordinance on medical marijuana collectives. Long Beach City Prosecutor, Thomas M. Reeves, shares his thoughts on the proposed document.

Greggory Moore speaks to Long Beach City Council regarding proposed draft ordinance for medical marijuana collectives (November 10, 2009)

TWITTER UPDATE: Specials from collectives in Long Beach, California

If you are following us on twitter (@dispensaries) and live in or near the Long Beach area then this may be for you. Over the next few days we are going to be transitioning all patient specials and announcements for Long Beach collectives ONLY to an account that will be dedicated strictly to that. The account for Long Beach collective's specials and announcements will be @lbcollectives.

We are doing this in an effort to enhance our communications and promote a positive web experience for all. There is no reason why someone in New York should have to receive Tweets about specials in Southern California. Hence our decision to dedicate a Twitter account strictly for that purpose.

Be sure to add @lbcollectives to your list of people you follow in order to continue to receive information regarding collectives and specials in the city of Long Beach.

We hope this change is a positive one for everyone! Comments are ALWAYS welcome with an open heart, spirit and mind.

LB City Council to consider ordinance to regulate marijuana dispensaries

On Tuesday, November 10, 2009 the Long Beach City Council will consider an ordinance drafted by City Attorney Robert Shannon to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries in the city. Last Tuesday, November 3, the council received a recommendation from the council’s Economic Development and Finance Committee on what the city can do to regulate the distribution of marijuana that is used for medicinal purposes [read more]

Source: Signal Tribune