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

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

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