Los Angeles - A Brief Medical Marijuana History (of Failure)

-->

The recent passage of the ban on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries by the Los Angeles City Council has left many puzzled given the Council’s history with this issue, the 762 current tax-paying collectives and recent court decisions stating collective bans are unlawful.  However, do not turn to logic or reason for your answer; you will drive yourself mad.  Instead, think politics.

In 2007, the LA City Council voted on what many refer to as the ‘illegal moratorium’ – illegal because the City Council failed to vote to extend this Interim Control Ordinance by day 45, the legal limit.  Instead the Council did not review this ordinance until 90 days after its passage, at which time the ICO had legally expired.  By State law LA’s moratorium was done before the ICO’s registration deadline. 

While at least 485 collectives were operating in the City on November 13, 2007, only 187 chose to register by the ICO deadline.  Many did not register as they were advised by their legal counsel not to because of the ‘illegal moratorium’ or advised to ‘not get on a list’ because a cross-deputized LAPD officer stated openly he would ‘bust everyone’s ass’ for admitting to running a collective or because of the DEA landlord threat letter.  Attorneys told their clients that if the City took any action against them, the collectives could sue. 

One-way in which collectives tried to remedy their situation was to file a Hardship Exemption.  Under any ICO there is a hardship clause.  This allows businesses that cannot comply with a moratorium to have a fair public hearing to consider the reason(s) for non-compliance.  While not official court hearings, Kangaroo Court does not begin to express how the hardship hearings were handled.  The City refused to hear that its moratorium was legally over.  The City refused to acknowledge that property owners in the City were under attack by the U.S. Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Administration.  The City would not hear that rogue LAPD officers threatened to target collectives that registered with the City.  It was at this point where any and all good faith attempts by collectives to be reasonable, dutiful players turned to hiring attorneys and preparing for the City to make its next move. 

During this time at least another 300 dispensaries opened their doors in LA.  Neighborhood groups and community leaders began to inquire with their council members as to why collectives continued to open despite the moratorium, why were so many collectives requesting a hardship and when will there is be a final regulatory ordinance?

Enter the LA City Attorney’s office.  In 2006, when Councilmember Dennis P. Zine first motioned for a moratorium, Patient Advocacy Network sat down with him to discuss the need to seat a working group to draft regulations expeditiously. He was reminded that the maximum time with extensions, 18 months and the 45 days, was all the time the City had by law to get an ordinance approved and on the books; failure to do so would create legal chaos.  The Los Angeles Medical Marijuana Working Group was seated and met several times during 2007, to draft a workable ordinance.  Much of the work was done before the moratorium took effect.  The Group’s final meeting was cancelled by notice from the City Attorney indicating that the Group’s input was no longer needed and the City Attorney would complete the City’s medical marijuana ordinance. 

Nearly a year passed and the City Attorney had still not presented a draft ordinance for Council’s approval despite numerous requests from the Council.  Councilmember Ed Reyes reconvened the Working Group very briefing and began drafting a new ordinance due to the lack of communication from the City Attorney.  Councilmember Zine had to actually get a motion passed to force the City Attorney’s office to present its draft ordinance.  What finally came to light was an unworkable, legally questionable ordinance unlike any set of regulations in California.  Sales were not allowed but sales tax had to be paid.  All patients had to participate in cultivation regardless of how ill, disabled or low-income they may be as the City Attorney believes cultivating is the only medical cannabis activity allowed by State law. 

Despite no legal evidence to support the City Attorney’s claims, the LA City Council, after adding further restrictions, approved what the media referred to as the ‘Worst Medical Marijuana Ordinance In The Country.”  Upon its passage in January 2010, the first lawsuits by patient collectives were filed against the City.  By December of 2010, the judge ruled that provisions of the City’s ordinance were unlawful and granted dozens of collectives a Temporary Restraining Order against the City of Los Angeles.  The City immediately made amendments to the ordinance to argue that the original ordinance was no longer in place but further lawsuits were filed and a few hundred more collectives opened their doors in Los Angeles. 

During these years patient advocates continued to offer solutions, present workable draft ordinances, facts, evidence and experts.  Patients and their advocates have attended countless hearings and meetings with the City on this issue.  Hundreds of patients have testified on public record what the City’s failed ordinances have done to their health and lives.

Then came the Battle of the Bans.  Angry, frustrated and concerned Angelenos still had the same set of questions they did in 2007:  Why do dispensaries continue to open; Why is there no workable set of guidelines for regulating them like in West Hollywood, Palm Springs, San Francisco;  Why can the City do nothing about shutting down bad players?  Instead of answering the questions they heard, the Council answered the questions they wanted to hear and ultimately blamed physicians, patients and State law for LA’s problems. 

LA Councilmembers José Huizar and Paul Koretz proposed banning dispensaries outright in two competing motions.  Huizar’s proposal is to ban all dispensaries but allow 3 or fewer patients to grow therapeutic grade cannabis together and to distribute the harvest among them – “The Gentle Ban” – gentle because sick and dying people get to become horticultural experts in their final days and weeks while they wait 4 - 6 months for a harvest.  Koretz’s motion is a ban on all dispensaries except 100 handpicked dispensaries that would remain operational – “The Limited Immunity Ban” – immunity limited to those who made contributions to Mr. Koretz’s election campaign.

The LA City Council does not like to appear in conflict publicly and on July 24, 2012, worked out a way in closed session to approve both bans.  The Gentle Ban was approved and adopted outright, signed by the Mayor and goes into effect September 6, 2012.  The Limited Immunity Ban was amended to include only the collectives that made it on the ICO list of 2007, and that proposal now heads back to commissions, committees and the Council for final approval. 

Now back to thinking politics.  When those concerned citizens ask their council members about the medical cannabis issue, the Council can say they voted on the ban, for them.  The City Attorney wrote The Gentle Ban and argued hard for it for many months as the “only way to the stop the lawsuits and close the dispensaries.”  Undermining our State’s medical marijuana laws and Councilmember Zine’s original motion to regulate storefront dispensaries has been the centerpiece of LA City Attorney Carmen Trutanich’s term in office.  After recently losing his bid for LA County District Attorney most local political experts argue Trutanich will also lose his bid to get re-elected as LA’s City Attorney.  When the ban doesn’t work, is challenged in court, very few close and more collectives open, the Council can throw the ‘Nuch’ under the bus.  He wrote it, it was his idea and he said it would work. 

Due to the failed moratorium and recent court decisions favoring collectives, any move by the City or the voters to block LA’s collectives from having a fair public hearing for consideration of a medical marijuana permit will perpetuate lawsuits.  Once the moratorium expired with no workable ordinance in place, the City gave every collective in LA vested rights.  This is not the fault of physicians or patients or Proposition 215.  This is the failure of the Los Angeles City Council.  Failure to put fair, workable regulations in place for medical cannabis collectives and to allow a fair process will cost Los Angeles taxpayer another few million dollars and possibly a few more political careers. 

Posted by Degé Coutee

A Resolution By The People Of Los Angeles To Regulate Medical Cannabis

PAN has received numerous requests from our community to present Los Angeles City Council with a resolution to regulate medical cannabis collectives.  The following was submitted to the Council during their June 20, 2012 meeting.

*****

RESOLUTION


A Resolution before the City of Los Angeles by the People of Los Angeles in order to amend the Los Angeles Municipal Code to regulate medical cannabis business activities as to protect the rights of patients and the will of the voters.

WHEREAS, the voters of California approved Proposition 215, The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (CUA) so that, with the recommendation of a physician, people with serious illnesses for which cannabis offers relief, can grow, obtain, transport and use cannabis without criminal jeopardy; and

WHEREAS, scientific medical research continues to demonstrate the therapeutic applications of cannabis for conditions such as Cancer, HIV/AIDS, Multiple Sclerosis, Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, Heart Disease and many other ailments; and

WHEREAS, cities such as West Hollywood, San Francisco, Palm Springs, Berkeley, Santa Cruz and others have successfully implemented workable, enforceable local guidelines for medical cannabis collective businesses sometimes called “Dispensaries;” and

WHEREAS, the People of Los Angeles support safe, legal access to medical cannabis for the nearly 400,000 qualified patients in the Greater Los Angeles area that utilize the over 800 patient collectives in the City; and

WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles benefits from the local taxation it implemented on the Dispensaries yet has failed to create a workable, legal set of guidelines causing frustration among our law enforcement and our communities and prompting scores of lawsuits; and

WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles has passed numerous motions since 2005, approving the implementation a local regulatory system and seating a Medical Marijuana Working Group for the purpose of drafting such guidelines and the Council's intent subsequently thwarted by the Los Angeles City Attorney's office with possible violations of State law; and

WHEREAS, the majority of the Dispensaries in the City of Los Angeles have self-regulated and been good neighbors by following The California State Attorney General Guidelines For The Security and Non-diversion of Marijuana Grown For Medical Use, August 2008, as well as creating jobs and revenue for Los Angeles and that many LA Dispensaries have grandfathering rights; and

WHEREAS, any ban on medical cannabis is a violation of the CUA, and the City of Los Angeles voted for a workable set of local medical cannabis guidelines and the People of Los Angeles support regulations that protect patients' rights, our communities and the will of the voters.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF LOS ANGELES DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

1.  The City of Los Angeles shall immediately:

            a.  Consult with outside counsel and any other related experts to draft a workable, enforceable set of local medical cannabis dispensary guidelines and look to other communities that have successfully implemented such for guidance;

            b.  Seat a citywide Medical Marijuana Taskforce made up of pertinent City staff and officials, medical cannabis patients and providers, and community and business leaders for the purpose of providing input on regulations and any future amendments, addressing concerns and creating any necessary subcommittees as needed;

            c.  Work with the California State Legislature and the U.S. Congress to realize a federal solution to the state-federal conflict regarding medical cannabis.

2.  Medical Cannabis Dispensaries in the City of Los Angeles shall:

            a.  Be any group of legally qualified patients and caregivers as defined by California State law that associate as a business entity for the purpose of legally dispensing medical cannabis exclusively amongst its registered members;

            b.  Be solely comprised of a private membership of legally qualified patients and their caregivers and obtain all of its medical cannabis products exclusively from its registered members;

            c.  Be good neighbors and operate within The California State Attorney General Guidelines For The Security and Non-diversion of Marijuana Grown For Medical Use, August 2008;

            d.  Follow reasonable security protocols by maintaining good lighting, appropriate signage, security cameras, safes, security guards or any security features deemed appropriate;

            e.  Be allowed fair permit hearings in their communities and be allowed to operate in accordance with the character and fashion of their neighborhoods and business communities.

I hereby certify that this Resolution by the People of Los Angeles was presented to the Los Angeles City Council at the Council meeting held on June 20, 2012.

                                                           

                                                           
Degé Coutee, Resident of Los Angeles

Medical Cannabis Patient and Social Justice Advocate

*****

Is It Too Late To Stop LA’s Ban?

City of Los Angeles Speaker Card

If medical cannabis patients and their advocates are waiting to speak-out against the citywide ban on collectives until the day the Los Angeles City Council takes its final vote , it will be too late.   LA City Council acknowledges that it only puts items on the agenda for a vote when the item has enough support to pass.  Similarly, since the ban has had two public hearings in committee already, the Council can choose to not take any public comment on the day of the vote, however, unlikely.  What is likely is that anyone who signs up to speak on the day of the final vote will get a minute or less to speak on a matter that has already decided. 

Patients who want to oppose the ban must do so NOW while council members are deliberating the issue behind closed doors.  Some of the LA City Council members are conflicted over the ban and appear to favor reasonable regulations instead of inevitable continued lawsuits.  Hearing from hundreds of concerned citizens helps sway votes by giving law makers the ‘political safe space’ to act by demonstrating that his/her constituents support a specific position. 

What Can Patients Do To Help Stop The Ban?

YOUR voice is YOUR vote.  Make phone calls, send emails or faxes to LA City Council.  Attend any LA City Council meeting before the final vote and speak during general public comment.  You can learn who your council representative is as well as the council representative of your favorite collective by visiting http://lacity.org/index.htm.

In the middle of the page is ‘Neighborhood Resources’ where you type in your street address/address of your collective to learn whom your council rep is.  You can get all of the necessary contact info from the council member’s web page. 

Form letters are NOT effective as a form letter is not YOUR voice.  It is the voice of a special interest getting you to support THEIR position.  Support your OWN position.   If form letters worked, then prohibition would have ended decades ago. 

What Should Patients Say, Write To The LA City Council?

If patients wish to speak during general public comment, see http://panorg.blogspot.com/2012/06/patients-want-to-stop-ban-on-las.html for detailed information about the Brown Act, filling out a speaker card and preparing a two-minute statement.  You do not have to speak for a full two minutes.  Statements can be brief and to the point.  Some like to educate the Council with facts as the Council is making up their own.

When writing to Council, think similarly.  You want to be courteous, concise and accurate.  You want to state your position in the first or second sentence or your message may get ‘lost.’ 

Make your statements true to you and your circumstances.  Here are a couple examples:

General Public Comment – “Good Morning Councilmembers.  My name is Patient Mary Jane and I live and vote in Silver Lake.  I oppose any ban on our City’s medical marijuana dispensaries.  I am very ill and cannot grow my own.  I do not want to be forced to the black market.  Please do not turn me into a criminal.  Please draft workable regulations like other cities such as West Hollywood, Palm Springs and San Francisco where collectives are NOT suing the city.  Please vote NO on banning collectives.   I thank you for your time and consideration. “

Written Comment – “Dear Councilmember…  I write to oppose any ban on our City’s medical marijuana dispensaries.  I am a long-time resident and voter in Silver Lake but I am too ill to grow my own medical-grade cannabis.  I have come to rely on ‘The Best Silver Lake Caregivers’ for my medical cannabis needs.  The patient consultants there have always taken good care of me and I always feel safe when I’m there.  Please do not push patients to the black market and turn us all into criminals.  Collectives like ‘The Best Silver Lake Caregivers’ deserve workable regulations and a fair hearing process for a City permit.  Cities such as West Hollywood, Palm Springs and San Francisco have workable regulations and are not burdened with scores of lawsuits.  Los Angeles should take note and learn from our sister cities.  I thank you for your time and attention to this matter.  As my Council Representative I kindly ask for the favor of your reply.  Sincerely, Patient Mary Jane  -  (310) 420-KIND mary@patientjane.com

If patients choose to write to Council, they should still make public comment during one of the upcoming Council meetings – even if it’s to read your letter (or a 2-minute portion of it).  Council does not always acknowledge correspondence and your voice-vote will not be counted unless a speaker card is submitted. 

Contact PAN if you have any questions or wish to host a patient empowerment event. 

Patients Want To Stop The Ban On LA's Medical Cannabis Collectives

The Late Richard Kearns speaks before LA City Council

The magnitude of LA’s upcoming ban appears to be sinking in with some.  PAN is receiving numerous inquires from concerned patients wanting to know how to stop this ban.  Below we try to best answer your questions.

What’s Going On? -

The resolutions to ban LA’s collectives are quickly moving through Council committees and will be up for a vote by the full Council as early as next week. 

See:

http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2011/11-1737-s1_mot_11-23-11a.pdf

http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2011/11-1737_MOT_10-12-11.pdf

http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2008/08-0923-s17_mot_5-9-12.pdf

The final committee hearing is Friday, June 8, 2012, at 8:30 a.m. at Van Nuys City Hall - 14410 Sylvan St., Van Nuys, CA 91401.  The resolution is being heard by the
Council’s Public Safety Committee and will move on to the full Council for a final vote soon after, potentially next Tuesday's Council meeting or ANY meeting thereafter.

See:

http://ens.lacity.org/clk/committeeagend/clkcommitteeagend2777497_06082012.pdf

City Hall is only required to give 72-hour notice before any committee, commission or Council hearing or vote on a matter.  Patients and their advocates must remain poised and informed in order to participate in these public hearings. LA City Council meets three days per week: Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays.  The City posts agendas and supplemental agendas daily.

What Can Patients/Advocates Do To Stop The LA Ban? * –

It is always critical for as many patients and advocates to sign up to speak as possible anytime medical cannabis is on the agenda here in LA. Not just the same people at every meeting - new faces all the time.

This participation takes place during the ‘public comment period’ of the meeting.  The public’s right to be notified and allowed to speak at official meetings affecting public policy is protected by the Brown Act.

See:

http://ag.ca.gov/publications/2003_Intro_BrownAct.pdf

There are ‘speaker cards’ available in the hearing room.  You will need to provide some basic personal information on the speaker card.  Street address is not necessary but including your LA neighborhood or zip code is very helpful.  You will need to indicate on the speaker card if you support or oppose the agenda item.  You will need to include the agenda item number and ‘council file number.’

For the sake of this Public Safety Committee hearing, patients are concerned with agenda item 6, council file number(s) 11-1737, 11-1737-S1 and agenda item 7, council file number 08-0923-S17.  Please refer to the link to the agenda above for details. 

Speaker cards are turned into the meeting’s clerk at the beginning of the meeting and names are called at the appropriate time.  Brown Act allows for up to two minutes for each person to speak.  However, because other bodies have heard these resolutions already, it is likely speakers will only get one minute to speak at the hearing on Friday.

Speakers need to provide their name and neighborhood of residence at the beginning of their comments.  It is best to write down your comments, practice them and time yourself.  One minute goes very fast.

PAN has received many inquiries as to what patients should say.  It is most important that patients speak from the heart but remain courteous, concise and accurate.  Some of the things patients might include in their comments are:  being a register voter; being a patient, veteran, cancer survivor; stating how important your collectives are to you, quality, safety, affordability, not wanting to turn to the black market, etc.

Here is an example script that patients can make unique and personal which is important to elected officials.  Not all of this info is necessary but just ideas on things patients can touch on when speaking. 

“Good morning council members, my name is…. I live in…”

“I am a (medical cannabis patient/[ailment] sufferer/survivor, war veteran, disabled, low-income, in government housing/a care home, can’t grow my own…).”

“I am a (your professional area of expertise – teacher, doctor, lawyer, collective staff…).

THE ASK – “I urge you to (delay any ban; look at the regulations working in other cities such as West Hollywood, San Francisco, Oakland; follow State law; protect patients’ rights;

“Don’t take away my right to safe, affordable access.”

“Don’t send me to the black market.”

“I vote.”

“I thank you… for your time and attention.”

You do not have to speak the full time allotted to you.  You can simply state your name and neighborhood and that you support or oppose the ban.  You can state that you agree with comment already made by others.  If public speaking is truly not your thing, you can fill out a speaker card and check all the correct boxes and waive your time when you are called.  The clerk will still record your speaker card stating your support or opposition.

How Many Patients Need To Show Up To Make A Differnce? **  –

Typically, when items are agendized at LA City Hall, they become law. If the current participation by a hand full of patients is the status quo, then the L.A. ban will definitely pass.

If 500 - 1,000 advocates (patients/operators/attorneys/doctors, etc.)  sign-up for public comment on day of the final Council vote while 5,000 - 10,000 patients peacefully rally outside City Hall, that may get enough of City Council's attention to consider amendments, tabling the vote, looking at alternatives...

These numbers are not arbitrary: 500 will fill the Council Chamber; 1,000 will require the fire marshal to put out the ropes in the hallway and safely line up all of the other speakers; 6,500 - 12,000 is the average range of votes that each council member received to win their current seat. For example, Tony Cardenas received 4,788 votes in the last City election while Paul Krekorian received 12,692.

Patients can sign-up for email updates from PAN to learn when LA City Council will hold its final vote. Contact PAN to learn more about organizing your group.

*  Should the ban pass, collectives are encouraged to seek legal counsel.  

** Should the ban pass, patients are encouraged to participate with Patients For Compassionate Use Policies, PAN’s sister Political Action Committee, in a local voter initiative to overturn the ban and put enforceable, workable regulations in place.  Contact director@compassionatepolicies.org to get involved. 

“What happened to Topanga Caregivers?”

-->

PAN received many inquiries about “What happened to Topanga Caregivers?”

On April 20, 2012, Topanga Caregivers in Woodland Hills was raided by LAPD with a search warrant signed by an LA Superior Court judge at 10:00 a.m. that morning.  The warrant also included one director’s home and vehicle.  Six people were arrested that day: three collective members on duty including the director and three security guards.  Currently charges include possession with intent for the director and conspiracy charges for his colleagues.   It’s unconfirmed the charges on the security guards.  All are out on bail.   Arraignment is set for May 18, 2012.

The raid was fairly typical: cameras removed; electronics tampered, destroyed, seized; cell phones, car keys seized; safes destroyed; all areas, furniture, shelves, drawers, boxes, containers searched, scattered; all cash seized; all cannabis flowers seized; some edibles and concentrates left behind. 

Patients report it was a terrifying scene and some officers were overly aggressive.  Officers allegedly boasted this was the beginning of a huge crackdown in the west SFV similar to that in north valley.  Specifically, the Topanga Division of the LAPD appears to be initiating an operation similar to that of the Devonshire Division; their “mission” – to shut down every collective in their jurisdiction, which they did.  Just ask the former director of Cannamed of Northridge who is still fighting her charges nearly three years on and maintaining her innocence. 

Topanga Caregivers states they are innocent, too.  They maintain: they have all applicable permits and licenses; they have complied with paying all applicable fees and taxes; they have successfully registered for every LA ‘list;’ they operated in the spirit of our State laws and “The Attorney General Guidelines;” they provided for a large compassion program.   PAN is witness to some of the collective’s open and cooperative relationships with their council member’s office as well as LAPD detectives investigating violent armed robberies.  

Like Cannamed of Northridge, Topanga Caregivers argues they operated within all regulatory schemes set forth by local and state authorities.  To charge any of these people with possession with intent or other related offences is nothing short of entrapment.   To point guns in the faces of peaceful, law-abiding patients is reprehensible.  For LA to continue to let this happen is shameful.

So, the next question is then, “Why?”

Politics.  The failure of LA City Council to properly regulate medical cannabis collectives is ignorant.  SF, Oakland, Berkeley and a few other NorCal cities have had reasonable success implementing Prop. 215 and S.B. 420 activities in their communities.   LA City Attorney Carmen Trutanich and his assistant Jane Usher have wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars, possibly millions, defending the City’s illegal and unworkable ordinance defining their intentions as their “mission.”  

This toxic atmosphere allows the LAPD to abuse their authority and terrorize law-abiding citizens while City Hall turns a blind eye.  It creates a very unsafe situation for patients who learn to fear contacting the local police in an emergency, making patients sitting ducks for violent crimes.  Collectives don’t create crime.  Bad laws create crime.

PAN’s question is, “What is the ‘mission’ of the LA medical cannabis community?”

Those interested in participating in court support can call (323) 334-5282. 

Patients Must Take Control Of Their Collectives or Free Gram of Cocaine For New Members

On August 4, 2011, the Los Angeles Police Department raided a medical marijuana dispensary in Northridge suspected of being a front for an interstate drug-trafficking operation. In addition to seizing cannabis, reports indicate authorities also seized 20 pounds of cocaine and several weapons, some loaded. The raid netted 6 suspects each being held on $1.5 million bail.

While patient advocates have been pleased that previous raids have revealed no more than cannabis and cash on hand at area collectives, it was only a matter of time before LA’s unregulated industry would be taken advantage of by dangerous criminals, leaving a huge black-eye on what is supposed to be a movement of “compassion.”

The victims are the patients. At fault is the LA City Council whose inability to implement a legal ordinance that has been trapped in a lengthy court battle with no near end in sight. Within LA’s current scheme there is no way for a legitimate patient to ensure they are visiting a legitimate collective putting the community at large at great risk.

The playing field is different now. The adage that collectives are passive places where authorities only find herb and cash is now badly tarnished. Future raids could prove to be more aggressive as cops now expect to find loaded weapons.

I recently met with friends visiting LA from outside the state. They told me about the number of ‘dispensaries’ they were referred to that would not ask any questions about their purchase nor require ID, physician’s recommendation, etc. It is concerning as to what else could be going on within these operations.

If patients truly want to protect their access, patients must become vocal and involved members of their collectives. By definition this is what makes a collective, a collective.

LA City Council To Consider Dispensary Ban

On December 15, 2010, Los Angeles Councilmembers Bernard Parks, Jan Perry and Greig Smith referred a motion to repeal LA’s dispensary ordinance to the Planning and Land Use Management Committee and requested that the City Attorney draft language to ban collectives in the City. (Link to motion: http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2008/08-0923-s14_mot_12-15-2010a.pdf )

Councilmembers Ed Reyes, José Huizar and Paul Krekorian sit on the PLUM Committee and will vote on whether to move the motion forward. Council will return to its regular meeting schedule the first week of January 2011.

The agony of defeat is driving the movers of this motion. Parks, Perry and Smith have actively worked to unravel any progress on a workable ordinance for five years. The recent court decision by Judge Anthony J. Mohr to issue an injunction against the City of Los Angeles, ruling that provisions in the current ordinance violate equal protection, due process and patient privacy, has put egg on the faces of those adversaries. (Link to story: http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-1211-pot-injunction-m,0,1172776.story ) These officials have treated patients like ignorant, second-class citizens with no rights. Patient Advocates knew it would take a judge to reveal the error of their ways.

As a result Parks, Perry and Smith are spiteful and vengeful. Instead of acting in accordance with their constituents, they would rather tie up City resources in lengthy, expensive lawsuits that the City will continue to lose. Patients and their collectives are prepared to fight this for as long as it takes. Banning collectives already authorized to remain open during the registration process or those that have won their injunction is only going to cause the City further legal grief. But Parks, Perry and Smith are too arrogant to consider the legal ramifications of their actions. They have taken a page out the Carmen Trutanich Bully Handbook.

Patients are encouraged to contact LA City Councilmembers about their concerns. PLUM Committee members will hear the matter first. Parks, Huizar and Krekorian are up for re-election in March along with Tom LaBonge, Tony Cardenas and Herb Wesson. LaBonge and Wesson have also been hostile toward patients. Councilmembers Janice Hahn, Paul Koretz and Bill Rosendahl have tried to be the most help to us and most likely will adamantly speak out against this motion. Councilmembers Ed Reyes and Dennis Zine were heavily involved with drafting early motions, a draft ordinance and a working group. Both officials had best intentions but had their hands bitten by the City Attorney’s office and has left them bitter regarding our issue.

Contact PAN if you have any questions about contacting your elected officials.

copyright © 2010 Degé Coutee



councilmember.reyes@lacity.org
councilmember.krekorian@lacity.org
councilmember.zine@lacity.org
councilmember.labonge@lacity.org
paul.koretz@lacity.org
councilmember.cardenas@lacity.org
councilmember.alarcon@lacity.org
Councilmember.Parks@lacity.org
Jan.Perry@lacity.org
councilmember.wesson@lacity.org
councilman.rosendahl@lacity.org
greig.smith@lacity.org
councilmember.garcetti@lacity.org
councilmember.huizar@lacity.org
janice.hahn@lacity.org