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 ordinance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label long beach ordinance. Show all posts
Friday, March 26, 2010
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
Friday, February 12, 2010
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
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
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Saturday, February 6, 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
Wednesday, February 3, 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
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
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
Saturday, November 7, 2009
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
Source: Signal Tribune
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
