We encourage you to call the collectives prior to making the trip, in case the hours have changed or the facility has been closed.
Natural Alternatives
18957 Ventura Blvd. [map]
Tarzana, CA 91356
Hours: Mon-Sun 10am to 8pm
Phone: 818-578-6273
If you know of an event that you feel should be listed on our calendar, please send details to info@mjdispensaries.com ~Thank You
Showing posts with label cooperative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cooperative. Show all posts
Friday, July 22, 2011
Tarzana Dispensaries, Collectives and Cooperatives
« Back
We encourage you to call the collectives prior to making the trip, in case the hours have changed or the facility has been closed.
Natural Alternatives
18957 Ventura Blvd. [map]
Tarzana, CA 91356
Hours: Mon-Sun 10am to 8pm
Phone: 818-578-6273
We encourage you to call the collectives prior to making the trip, in case the hours have changed or the facility has been closed.
Natural Alternatives
18957 Ventura Blvd. [map]
Tarzana, CA 91356
Hours: Mon-Sun 10am to 8pm
Phone: 818-578-6273
Monday, May 23, 2011
Silverlake Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Collectives and Co-operatives
Sunset Junction Organic Medicine
4017 W. Sunset Blvd. [map]
Silverlake, CA 90029
Hours: Mon-Sun 11am to 8pm
Phone: 323-660-0655
Website: sunsetjunctionmeds.com
4017 W. Sunset Blvd. [map]
Silverlake, CA 90029
Hours: Mon-Sun 11am to 8pm
Phone: 323-660-0655
Website: sunsetjunctionmeds.com
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
NEWS: Upland says no to medical marijuana cooperative
UPLAND - The City Council this week denied another medical marijuana cooperative the ability to operate within city limits.
Route 66 Nursery, 1743 W. Foothill Blvd., had appealed a decision by city staffers to deny their application for a business license.
Council members denied the application because the cooperative was not consistent with the city's zoning ordinance that prohibit medical marijuana cooperatives.
The council denied the appeal on Monday at a special meeting at City Hall.
"We've been consistent, I think, in our dealing with four previous facilities involving marijuana and I see this as being slightly different, but still I think we are within our boundaries to deny it," Councilman Tom Thomas said.
Qualified medical marijuana patients can pay a monthly fee for a small plot to grow and cultivate their own medical marijuana at Route 66 Nursery.
The nursery applied for a business license on June 28 and had it denied two days later.
The nursery in September filed an appeal letter challenging the city's decision.
David Welch, the attorney representing Route 66 Nursery, said the city's zoning ordinance is inconsistent with state law.
California voters approved the Compassionate Use Act in 1996, which decriminalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
Welch also cited the Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2004 that made it possible for the state to determine ways of dispensing medical marijuana.
"I really focus on the true intent for the seriously ill. If the seriously ill can't cultivate marijuana in the city of Upland, must they go outside the city or can they (the patients) do it?" Welch said. "This legislation and the people of California were wise enough to allow that to occur for them, but the city of Upland denied them that right, so I'll talk to my client and proceed from there."
However, the city's position is that there is nothing in either act that requires the city to allow medical marijuana cooperatives, dispensaries or nurseries, according to the staff report.
Source: Contra Costa Times
Route 66 Nursery, 1743 W. Foothill Blvd., had appealed a decision by city staffers to deny their application for a business license.
Council members denied the application because the cooperative was not consistent with the city's zoning ordinance that prohibit medical marijuana cooperatives.
The council denied the appeal on Monday at a special meeting at City Hall.
"We've been consistent, I think, in our dealing with four previous facilities involving marijuana and I see this as being slightly different, but still I think we are within our boundaries to deny it," Councilman Tom Thomas said.
Qualified medical marijuana patients can pay a monthly fee for a small plot to grow and cultivate their own medical marijuana at Route 66 Nursery.
The nursery applied for a business license on June 28 and had it denied two days later.
The nursery in September filed an appeal letter challenging the city's decision.
David Welch, the attorney representing Route 66 Nursery, said the city's zoning ordinance is inconsistent with state law.
California voters approved the Compassionate Use Act in 1996, which decriminalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
Welch also cited the Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2004 that made it possible for the state to determine ways of dispensing medical marijuana.
"I really focus on the true intent for the seriously ill. If the seriously ill can't cultivate marijuana in the city of Upland, must they go outside the city or can they (the patients) do it?" Welch said. "This legislation and the people of California were wise enough to allow that to occur for them, but the city of Upland denied them that right, so I'll talk to my client and proceed from there."
However, the city's position is that there is nothing in either act that requires the city to allow medical marijuana cooperatives, dispensaries or nurseries, according to the staff report.
Source: Contra Costa Times
Sunday, October 24, 2010
NEWS: Marijuana Cooperative Files Suit Against City
The Conejo Wellness Center, Agoura Hills' sole medical marijuana collective, filed a lawsuit Friday against the city of Agoura Hills, its various agencies and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, alleging they violated its due process rights and infringed its constitutional right to operate lawfully. Seeking a temporary restraining order, the Center aims to prevent the city of Agoura Hills from taking any action to disallow Conejo Wellness from operating as a medical marijuana collective.
The suit alleges that the city of Agoura Hills overstepped its use of muncipal law enforcement by working cooperatively with the Sheriff's Department in thwarting the collective's operations, according to the Conejo Wellness Center's attorney, Arthur D. Hodge.
The Sheriff's Department Narcotics Strike Force raided the dispensary on Oct. 14, alleging it cultivated and distributed medical marijuana for profit.
"They weren't there to arrest anybody, just harass us," Mike Brown, a co-owner of the dispensary, told Patch the day after the raid. "They told us we are not allowed back there."
Assistant City Manager Louis Celaya contends that the city has been conducting a separate investigation into whether the Center was operating without the required business permit.
"The owner of the dispensary elected to open its non-conforming business in violation of municipal code," he said. "The Sheriff's Department does not handle matters of code enforcement."
The collective registered as an entity with the California secretary of state's office on June 8, 2006, according to Hodge, to provide medicinal marijuana to those patients in need. A tax registration certificate from the city of Los Angeles indicates that the business opened in Agoura Hills on Apr. 1, 2006.
Agoura Hills officials established a moratorium banning medicinal marijuana dispensaries after one such operation on Agoura Court, posing as a copier company, was evicted for lease violations in 2006. The City Council adopted an ordinance in 2008 making the ban permanent.
On Sept. 22, 2010, the City Council amended the ordinance, changing the definition of the word "business" from the original language to include not-for-profit cooperatives, such as the Conejo Wellness Center.
The lawsuit alleges that the enforcement of the amended ordinance, which disqualifies the Center from obtaining a business registration permit while at the same time mandating that it have one, is in violation of California and U.S. constitutional due process of rights.
Due process can be applied to persons as well as corporate entities, according to both California and US constitutions. Due process rights guarantee that the government cannot thwart a person's basic rights to life, liberty or property, without due process of law.
Hodge said the Conejo Wellness Center applied for a registration permit with the city on Dec. 14, 2009, despite the fact that it was not a profit-seeking entity. The Center was never verbally or otherwise told it was denied a business registration permit or had its $35 fee returned, he said.
Celaya said several attempts were made to contact the applicant by telephone. The application was denied, because it did not clearly state the nature of the business. "The property owner essentially disregarded concerns from the city," Celaya said.
The Conejo Wellness Center maintains that it is a collective of patients lawfully organized under the laws of the state of California, and that the city violated the Center's right to privacy and association. The collective's patients have a right to cultivate and distribute marijuana under California law, Hodge said.
The owners of the Conejo Wellness Center feel confident that they may be able to reopen its doors as early as next week, based on statements on its Facebook page.
A court date has been set for Monday at the Los Angeles County Superior Court at 600 S. Commonwealth Ave.
Source: Agoura Hills Patch
The suit alleges that the city of Agoura Hills overstepped its use of muncipal law enforcement by working cooperatively with the Sheriff's Department in thwarting the collective's operations, according to the Conejo Wellness Center's attorney, Arthur D. Hodge.
The Sheriff's Department Narcotics Strike Force raided the dispensary on Oct. 14, alleging it cultivated and distributed medical marijuana for profit.
"They weren't there to arrest anybody, just harass us," Mike Brown, a co-owner of the dispensary, told Patch the day after the raid. "They told us we are not allowed back there."
Assistant City Manager Louis Celaya contends that the city has been conducting a separate investigation into whether the Center was operating without the required business permit.
"The owner of the dispensary elected to open its non-conforming business in violation of municipal code," he said. "The Sheriff's Department does not handle matters of code enforcement."
The collective registered as an entity with the California secretary of state's office on June 8, 2006, according to Hodge, to provide medicinal marijuana to those patients in need. A tax registration certificate from the city of Los Angeles indicates that the business opened in Agoura Hills on Apr. 1, 2006.
Agoura Hills officials established a moratorium banning medicinal marijuana dispensaries after one such operation on Agoura Court, posing as a copier company, was evicted for lease violations in 2006. The City Council adopted an ordinance in 2008 making the ban permanent.
On Sept. 22, 2010, the City Council amended the ordinance, changing the definition of the word "business" from the original language to include not-for-profit cooperatives, such as the Conejo Wellness Center.
The lawsuit alleges that the enforcement of the amended ordinance, which disqualifies the Center from obtaining a business registration permit while at the same time mandating that it have one, is in violation of California and U.S. constitutional due process of rights.
Due process can be applied to persons as well as corporate entities, according to both California and US constitutions. Due process rights guarantee that the government cannot thwart a person's basic rights to life, liberty or property, without due process of law.
Hodge said the Conejo Wellness Center applied for a registration permit with the city on Dec. 14, 2009, despite the fact that it was not a profit-seeking entity. The Center was never verbally or otherwise told it was denied a business registration permit or had its $35 fee returned, he said.
Celaya said several attempts were made to contact the applicant by telephone. The application was denied, because it did not clearly state the nature of the business. "The property owner essentially disregarded concerns from the city," Celaya said.
The Conejo Wellness Center maintains that it is a collective of patients lawfully organized under the laws of the state of California, and that the city violated the Center's right to privacy and association. The collective's patients have a right to cultivate and distribute marijuana under California law, Hodge said.
The owners of the Conejo Wellness Center feel confident that they may be able to reopen its doors as early as next week, based on statements on its Facebook page.
A court date has been set for Monday at the Los Angeles County Superior Court at 600 S. Commonwealth Ave.
Source: Agoura Hills Patch
Monday, September 27, 2010
NEWS: Upland medical marijuana co-ops file with state Supreme Court
UPLAND - Medical marijuana cooperatives fighting the city to stay open are looking to the state Supreme Court for help.
An attorney representing three cooperatives in the city has filed a petition for review and an application for a stay with the state Supreme Court in San Francisco.
The city shut down the cooperatives because its zoning ordinance does not allow such facilities to operate.
G3 Holistic, Upland Herbal Patient Cooperative and Old World Solutions were shut down Aug. 13 after a preliminary injunction was awarded to the city by Judge Barry Plotkin at West Valley Superior Court in Rancho Cucamonga.
"The Court of Appeal declined summarily so now they're taking another bite at the apple, so to speak, seeking the Supreme Court opinion," Upland City Attorney William Curley said. "We're feeling pretty confident the court would uphold Judge Plotkin and his position, but certainly we'll see. It's certainly their right to seek the high level of review."
A request similar to the one sent to the state Supreme Court has been rejected by the Court of Appeal in Riverside.
"We have no ruling and we're hoping the Supreme Court will get involved," said Roger Jon Diamond, the attorney representing the three cooperatives. "It's difficult to get the attention of the Supreme Court because they're busy with a lot of cases, and they ordinarily don't like to take cases until there's been a few decisions by a Court of Appeal."
Diamond filed a petition for a stay with the Court of Appeal in Riverside, but it was denied, which led to the Supreme Court filing.
"The Court of Appeal, without giving any reason and with no explanation, denied our petition," Diamond said. "That order from the Court of Appeal filed Sept. 9 is what we're challenging in the Supreme Court."
Plotkin granted the injunction to the city after an opinion was made by an appeals court in Santa Ana regarding a similar case in Anaheim.
The case involved an Anaheim-based cooperative - Qualified Patients Association - that had sued the city of Anaheim in 2007. The city had attempted to implement an ordinance banning all dispensaries.
A dispensary is a for-profit entity that provides medical marijuana to qualified patients. A cooperative is a nonprofit that provides medical marijuana in a shop-like setting.
The opinion, published Aug. 18, was expected to address whether cities have the right to ban cooperatives, but the court ordered that part back to trial court for more hearings.
However, the court determined that California's Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which decriminalized medical marijuana, trumps federal law when cities attempt to ban dispensaries based on federal law. Federal law considers growing and using marijuana to be illegal. A footnote in the ruling went against an argument used by Anaheim attorneys.
The city of Upland relied on the same cases to argue for a preliminary injunction on the cooperatives.
"All of those that are representing cities or are on our side of the fence, so to speak, don't see that the Qualified Patients' case did anything to alter the status quo," Curley said. "Those in favor of the marijuana vending read into the footnotes and see a whole bunch of things that they cling to to say they're right."
Officials from the cooperatives announced they may present settlement terms to the city. Curley said he has not seen the terms and could not comment on them.
But, he said, the city does not intend to stop enforcing its ordinance.
Cooperatives "are prohibited. There's no middle ground, Curley said. "So if we have a proposal that says `Let us be open every other day,' there is no middle ground other than `you're not allowed.' I'm not sure what the proposal is, but, if and when we get it, we'll fairly look at it."
Officials from the cooperatives are also gathering signatures for a petition that could bring the issue up for vote in Upland. They will need about 3,500 signatures from registered voters in the city to get a measure on a ballot that would ask whether cooperatives can operate in the city under certain guidelines.
"The city is spending a lot of money fighting," Diamond said. "I don't know what their hang-up is. I mean, it seems to me that it is a crime not to allow someone undergoing chemotherapy whose nauseous, whose doctor recommends marijuana - it's a crime for the city to say you can't do it here in Upland."
Source: Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
An attorney representing three cooperatives in the city has filed a petition for review and an application for a stay with the state Supreme Court in San Francisco.
The city shut down the cooperatives because its zoning ordinance does not allow such facilities to operate.
G3 Holistic, Upland Herbal Patient Cooperative and Old World Solutions were shut down Aug. 13 after a preliminary injunction was awarded to the city by Judge Barry Plotkin at West Valley Superior Court in Rancho Cucamonga.
"The Court of Appeal declined summarily so now they're taking another bite at the apple, so to speak, seeking the Supreme Court opinion," Upland City Attorney William Curley said. "We're feeling pretty confident the court would uphold Judge Plotkin and his position, but certainly we'll see. It's certainly their right to seek the high level of review."
A request similar to the one sent to the state Supreme Court has been rejected by the Court of Appeal in Riverside.
"We have no ruling and we're hoping the Supreme Court will get involved," said Roger Jon Diamond, the attorney representing the three cooperatives. "It's difficult to get the attention of the Supreme Court because they're busy with a lot of cases, and they ordinarily don't like to take cases until there's been a few decisions by a Court of Appeal."
Diamond filed a petition for a stay with the Court of Appeal in Riverside, but it was denied, which led to the Supreme Court filing.
"The Court of Appeal, without giving any reason and with no explanation, denied our petition," Diamond said. "That order from the Court of Appeal filed Sept. 9 is what we're challenging in the Supreme Court."
Plotkin granted the injunction to the city after an opinion was made by an appeals court in Santa Ana regarding a similar case in Anaheim.
The case involved an Anaheim-based cooperative - Qualified Patients Association - that had sued the city of Anaheim in 2007. The city had attempted to implement an ordinance banning all dispensaries.
A dispensary is a for-profit entity that provides medical marijuana to qualified patients. A cooperative is a nonprofit that provides medical marijuana in a shop-like setting.
The opinion, published Aug. 18, was expected to address whether cities have the right to ban cooperatives, but the court ordered that part back to trial court for more hearings.
However, the court determined that California's Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which decriminalized medical marijuana, trumps federal law when cities attempt to ban dispensaries based on federal law. Federal law considers growing and using marijuana to be illegal. A footnote in the ruling went against an argument used by Anaheim attorneys.
The city of Upland relied on the same cases to argue for a preliminary injunction on the cooperatives.
"All of those that are representing cities or are on our side of the fence, so to speak, don't see that the Qualified Patients' case did anything to alter the status quo," Curley said. "Those in favor of the marijuana vending read into the footnotes and see a whole bunch of things that they cling to to say they're right."
Officials from the cooperatives announced they may present settlement terms to the city. Curley said he has not seen the terms and could not comment on them.
But, he said, the city does not intend to stop enforcing its ordinance.
Cooperatives "are prohibited. There's no middle ground, Curley said. "So if we have a proposal that says `Let us be open every other day,' there is no middle ground other than `you're not allowed.' I'm not sure what the proposal is, but, if and when we get it, we'll fairly look at it."
Officials from the cooperatives are also gathering signatures for a petition that could bring the issue up for vote in Upland. They will need about 3,500 signatures from registered voters in the city to get a measure on a ballot that would ask whether cooperatives can operate in the city under certain guidelines.
"The city is spending a lot of money fighting," Diamond said. "I don't know what their hang-up is. I mean, it seems to me that it is a crime not to allow someone undergoing chemotherapy whose nauseous, whose doctor recommends marijuana - it's a crime for the city to say you can't do it here in Upland."
Source: Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
