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 long beach medical marijuana ordinance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label long beach medical marijuana ordinance. Show all posts
Friday, March 26, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
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
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
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
NEWS: Long Beach Council approves medical pot ordinance
LONG BEACH - Medical marijuana collectives will have to grow their weed within the city limits and will face greater school buffer zones under an ordinance approved Tuesday.
After months of working and reworking the law, the City Council voted 5-4 to approve the new restrictions on top of other requirements, such as the registration of collectives and taking security measures. The vote was a first reading and the ordinance will return for a final vote likely next week.
Council members Robert Garcia, Tonia Reyes Uranga, Rae Gabelich and Val Lerch voted against the ordinance.
City Attorney Bob Shannon had presented the council with three different options on how to regulate the collectives in response to a presentation by the District Attorney's Office and the Sheriff's Department last month.
Alternatives that weren't approved by the council included restricting the number of collectives allowed in each council district and requiring cultivation within the county instead of just Long Beach.
The DA had said that the ordinance wouldn't comply with state law if it didn't include local cultivation requirements and a rule that only collective members could grow marijuana, both of which were added to the law.
Lerch and Gabelich in particular disputed this legal interpretation, and Lerch chastised Shannon for trying to redo the legislation.
"I am not sure why we're here with a whole new version of the medical marijuana ordinance," Lerch said. "We have a version on the floor that was approved by the majority of the council."
The council had approved the creation of an ordinance that didn't restrict where marijuana could be grown in February one week before hearing the DA's presentation and postponing another vote.
Shannon said the ordinance was "incomplete" as previously approved and that he wouldn't draft the law if it didn't pass muster.
Gabelich suggested requiring that marijuana be grown within the state, rather than the county or city.
"You start with the least restrictive, and you pull it in as necessary," she said.
However, Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal and Mayor Bob Foster said that was backward.
"Start narrow, start within our own city ... And then enlarge it as the need arises," Lowenthal said.
Foster said that it would be much harder to make the law more restrictive after collectives had already spent money establishing themselves.
The council also voted to extend the areas around schools in which collectives aren't allowed to operate - the 1,500-foot buffer for high schools remained, while the 500-foot buffer for other schools was extended to 1,000 feet.
Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske had suggested the change, noting that Long Beach Unified School District had requested the 1,000-foot buffer to comply with its drug-free school zones.
Notably absent at the meeting was a long line of medical marijuana advocates speaking on the matter.
Foster didn't allow public comment, as the meeting was a continuation from February and the public has made its opinions known at multiple meetings.
However, Rick Brizendine, an attorney representing Belmont Shore Natural Care medical marijuana collective, said after the vote that this was a violation of the Brown Act.
"The public has never had an opportunity to comment on the most recently raised issue of in-city cultivation," Brizendine said. "It was brought up at the last meeting, but the public was not allowed to comment on that either."
At that meeting, Foster only allowed comments about the motion to continue the matter to a later date.
Shannon said there was no Brown Act violation.
"The Brown Act only requires that you testify once with regard to a particular issue," Shannon said. "Everybody has had repeated chances to testify."
Brizendine said that because of this alleged violation and other aspects of the law, his client is "absolutely" considering taking legal action.
Source: Contra Costa Times
After months of working and reworking the law, the City Council voted 5-4 to approve the new restrictions on top of other requirements, such as the registration of collectives and taking security measures. The vote was a first reading and the ordinance will return for a final vote likely next week.
Council members Robert Garcia, Tonia Reyes Uranga, Rae Gabelich and Val Lerch voted against the ordinance.
City Attorney Bob Shannon had presented the council with three different options on how to regulate the collectives in response to a presentation by the District Attorney's Office and the Sheriff's Department last month.
Alternatives that weren't approved by the council included restricting the number of collectives allowed in each council district and requiring cultivation within the county instead of just Long Beach.
The DA had said that the ordinance wouldn't comply with state law if it didn't include local cultivation requirements and a rule that only collective members could grow marijuana, both of which were added to the law.
Lerch and Gabelich in particular disputed this legal interpretation, and Lerch chastised Shannon for trying to redo the legislation.
"I am not sure why we're here with a whole new version of the medical marijuana ordinance," Lerch said. "We have a version on the floor that was approved by the majority of the council."
The council had approved the creation of an ordinance that didn't restrict where marijuana could be grown in February one week before hearing the DA's presentation and postponing another vote.
Shannon said the ordinance was "incomplete" as previously approved and that he wouldn't draft the law if it didn't pass muster.
Gabelich suggested requiring that marijuana be grown within the state, rather than the county or city.
"You start with the least restrictive, and you pull it in as necessary," she said.
However, Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal and Mayor Bob Foster said that was backward.
"Start narrow, start within our own city ... And then enlarge it as the need arises," Lowenthal said.
Foster said that it would be much harder to make the law more restrictive after collectives had already spent money establishing themselves.
The council also voted to extend the areas around schools in which collectives aren't allowed to operate - the 1,500-foot buffer for high schools remained, while the 500-foot buffer for other schools was extended to 1,000 feet.
Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske had suggested the change, noting that Long Beach Unified School District had requested the 1,000-foot buffer to comply with its drug-free school zones.
Notably absent at the meeting was a long line of medical marijuana advocates speaking on the matter.
Foster didn't allow public comment, as the meeting was a continuation from February and the public has made its opinions known at multiple meetings.
However, Rick Brizendine, an attorney representing Belmont Shore Natural Care medical marijuana collective, said after the vote that this was a violation of the Brown Act.
"The public has never had an opportunity to comment on the most recently raised issue of in-city cultivation," Brizendine said. "It was brought up at the last meeting, but the public was not allowed to comment on that either."
At that meeting, Foster only allowed comments about the motion to continue the matter to a later date.
Shannon said there was no Brown Act violation.
"The Brown Act only requires that you testify once with regard to a particular issue," Shannon said. "Everybody has had repeated chances to testify."
Brizendine said that because of this alleged violation and other aspects of the law, his client is "absolutely" considering taking legal action.
Source: Contra Costa Times
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
VIDEO: Head Deputy of LA Narcotics Division testifies at Long Beach Council meeting
February 16, 2010 LB City Council - Head Deputy Joey Esposito testifies before the city council on his observations and experience dealing with medical marijuana issues.
Monday, February 15, 2010
NEWS: Authorities will address medical marijuana rules at City Council session in Long Beach
After the City Council approved measures to regulate medical marijuana collectives two weeks ago, the matter appeared to be resolved. All that was needed was a final vote to put the council's stamp on it.
But last week, that vote was removed from the council agenda because Mayor Bob Foster wanted to have a representative of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office address some concerns he had about the legal ramifications of the new regulations.
On Tuesday, the debate is back. The council will hear from the DA and law enforcement officials Tuesday before taking a vote.
Will the council change its medical marijuana law or will it sign off on what the majority had already approved?
Foster's concern is that the council, in a split 5-4 vote, decided not to implement any regulations on where medical marijuana must be grown. Two possibilities had been suggested - that marijuana be grown on-site at the collectives, like Los Angeles requires under its recently approved law, or that the collectives grow their marijuana within the city limits, as recommended by Long Beach police officials.
The effects of either of these regulations, or none at all, is still unclear.
As approved, Long Beach's law still requires testing for pesticides and other contaminants on marijuana. If a sample is found to be contaminated, the original plant must be destroyed.
However, this could be unenforceable when the plants may come from anywhere in the United States or even outside of the country.
Some council members who opposed not having any local cultivation requirements also said they were concerned that this would encourage drug traffickers to move into Long Beach to sell through the collectives.
Collective operators, on the other hand, said most collectives don't have the space or the ability to grow all of the marijuana they need on site. Growing their marijuana at an off-site location in town would still create a security risk, they said.
Operators also have spoken out recently about what appears to be a last-minute attempt to alter the outcome of the ordinance, raising concerns that they won't have the same opportunity to make their case that the District Attorney's Office will have Tuesday.
The council meets at 5 p.m. in City Hall, 333 W. Ocean Blvd. The meeting can be viewed live in Long Beach on Charter Communications Channel 3, Verizon FiOS channel 21, and online at www.longbeach.gov.
Want to go?
What: Long Beach City Council meeting
When: Tuesday, 5 p.m.
Where: City Hall, 333 W. Ocean Blvd.
Information:The meeting can be viewed live in Long Beach on Charter Communications Channel 3, Verizon FiOS channel 21, and online at the city's Web site.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Saturday, February 6, 2010
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: Medical Marijuana Patient Jamie Green speaks to Long Beach City Council on Ordinance
From Long Beach City Council Meeting on February 2, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Long Beach's revised medical marijuana draft ordinance shows the good, the bad and the ugly
The second draft (view copy) of the medical marijuana ordinance for the city of Long Beach was made available on the internet and after reviewing it, it still seems like a hodgepodge of the good, the bad and the ugly. Almost as if the city was trying to please everyone, but missed the overall target because of it.
First for the Good:
During the meeting that took place November 10, 2009 one item that came up in the discussion was the proposed access that the police would have to the surveillance videos. Without a search warrant, subpoena or court order. The part about the police getting it without the proper legal means (search warrant, subpoena or court order) has been removed from the revised draft. This was an item of concern for some owners of the collectives on hand.
Another item that shared even more concern was the turning over of the patient list to the city without a search warrant, subpoena or court order. In the revised document that has been completely removed and now it would be the responsibility of the collective to keep that information, available for review at the location, for 5-years.
Now for the Bad:
Distance from schools has been increased from 1000' to 1500'.
"The Medical Marijuana Collective is not located within a one thousand five hundred foot (1,500) radius of a school."
I'm not quite sure what happened to the compassionate part but I guess a person that has a hard time walking or pushing their wheelchair is going to find that such a great help to know they have to travel 500' further.
With the following item, some families are going to have to close up shop even though they have been decent human beings and neighbors and will become another statistic in our unemployment rate.
What other business, such as a pharmacy or a bar, has distance limits made on how far they can be from another competitor? This is a simple matter of supply and demand. If an area gets saturated with collectives then once the patient demand is met anyone else that tries to open up will most likely fail or they may put someone else out of business. So this 1000' from collective to collective is only because it's "marijuana". No, people...it's "MEDICINE" it is "LIFE". For those that suffer from Cancer, AIDS, Multiple Sclerosis, Bipolar Disorder and other debilitating conditions one thing we have in common is that we are all suffering.
Just Ugly:
"No manufacture of Concentrated Cannabis in violation of California Health and Safety Code Section 11379.6 is allowed"
Section 11379.6 when read, sounds like laws that should be applicable to meth labs and coke factories. All that is happening here is the medicine is being separated from the plant. I know some patients who are in severe pain and need that extra bit of relief. They depend on things like this....once again, where is the compassion?
"Medical Mariiuana Collective membership, established pursuant to this Chapter, shall be limited to one Collective fully permitted in accordance with this Chapter.
In other words patients can only be a member of ONE collective. This is a completely disservice to patients due to the fact that there are hundreds of medical marijuana strains available, each having their unique benefits to the individuals. Perhaps in a perfect world this would work just fine, but we don't live in a perfect world. So lets just accept that and try being more realistic.
"Nothing in this Chapter purports to permit activities that are otherwise
illegal under federal, state, or local law."
That part about illegal under federal law basically nullifies the entire draft ordinance that Mr. Shannon so meticulously worked on. I'm sure there is an explanation on this or perhaps it just needs to be reworded. We'll find out all these things and more on Tuesday January 19, 2010 at the Long Beach City Council meeting.
Click Here to view a copy of the 2nd draft of the medical marijuana ordinance as prepared by City Attorney Robert E. Shannon.
Article By: Doc Herbalist
docherbalist@gmail.com
First for the Good:
During the meeting that took place November 10, 2009 one item that came up in the discussion was the proposed access that the police would have to the surveillance videos. Without a search warrant, subpoena or court order. The part about the police getting it without the proper legal means (search warrant, subpoena or court order) has been removed from the revised draft. This was an item of concern for some owners of the collectives on hand.
Another item that shared even more concern was the turning over of the patient list to the city without a search warrant, subpoena or court order. In the revised document that has been completely removed and now it would be the responsibility of the collective to keep that information, available for review at the location, for 5-years.
Now for the Bad:
Distance from schools has been increased from 1000' to 1500'.
"The Medical Marijuana Collective is not located within a one thousand five hundred foot (1,500) radius of a school."
I'm not quite sure what happened to the compassionate part but I guess a person that has a hard time walking or pushing their wheelchair is going to find that such a great help to know they have to travel 500' further.
With the following item, some families are going to have to close up shop even though they have been decent human beings and neighbors and will become another statistic in our unemployment rate.
"The Medical Marijuana Collective is not located within a one
thousand foot (1,000') radius of a state licensed child care facility, playground, youth center or other Medical Marijuana Collective."
thousand foot (1,000') radius of a state licensed child care facility, playground, youth center or other Medical Marijuana Collective."
What other business, such as a pharmacy or a bar, has distance limits made on how far they can be from another competitor? This is a simple matter of supply and demand. If an area gets saturated with collectives then once the patient demand is met anyone else that tries to open up will most likely fail or they may put someone else out of business. So this 1000' from collective to collective is only because it's "marijuana". No, people...it's "MEDICINE" it is "LIFE". For those that suffer from Cancer, AIDS, Multiple Sclerosis, Bipolar Disorder and other debilitating conditions one thing we have in common is that we are all suffering.
Just Ugly:
"No manufacture of Concentrated Cannabis in violation of California Health and Safety Code Section 11379.6 is allowed"
Section 11379.6 when read, sounds like laws that should be applicable to meth labs and coke factories. All that is happening here is the medicine is being separated from the plant. I know some patients who are in severe pain and need that extra bit of relief. They depend on things like this....once again, where is the compassion?
"Medical Mariiuana Collective membership, established pursuant to this Chapter, shall be limited to one Collective fully permitted in accordance with this Chapter.
In other words patients can only be a member of ONE collective. This is a completely disservice to patients due to the fact that there are hundreds of medical marijuana strains available, each having their unique benefits to the individuals. Perhaps in a perfect world this would work just fine, but we don't live in a perfect world. So lets just accept that and try being more realistic.
"Nothing in this Chapter purports to permit activities that are otherwise
illegal under federal, state, or local law."
That part about illegal under federal law basically nullifies the entire draft ordinance that Mr. Shannon so meticulously worked on. I'm sure there is an explanation on this or perhaps it just needs to be reworded. We'll find out all these things and more on Tuesday January 19, 2010 at the Long Beach City Council meeting.
Click Here to view a copy of the 2nd draft of the medical marijuana ordinance as prepared by City Attorney Robert E. Shannon.
Article By: Doc Herbalist
docherbalist@gmail.com
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
IN THE NEWS: Medical Marijuana - The Bigger Picture
On November 10 the City Council took up the question of medical marijuana once again. Like so many other communities in California, Long Beach has necessarily been struggling with the minutiae of this challenge… trying to balance the medical needs of legitimate patients as defined by Prop 215 – as well as other legislation and case law – with the legitimate concerns of the rest of the community while trying to remain within the confines of other relevant laws concerning marijuana cultivation, possession, transfer and use.
Read full story »
WATCH VIDEOS: Individual video clips of members of the public addressing the Long Beach City Council at the meeting on November 10, 2009.
Source: LBPOST.com
Read full story »
WATCH VIDEOS: Individual video clips of members of the public addressing the Long Beach City Council at the meeting on November 10, 2009.
Source: LBPOST.com
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
