.
Feedback

Committee Approves 'Gentle Ban' of Marijuana Dispensaries

Full council will next hear the proposed ban, which was approved unanimously by the Planning and Land Use Management Committee on Tuesday.

The city of Los Angeles took a step closer today to banning medical marijuana dispensaries, while allowing patients to grow their own pot or get it from a licensed caregiver.

The council's Planning and Land Use Management Committee voted unanimously to approve a proposed ordinance that would ban all dispensaries in the city until the California Supreme Court rules on whether, and how, cities can regulate the distribution of medical marijuana. A ruling by the state's high court is not expected for at least one year.

The ordinance proposed by Councilman Jose Huizar would allow mini-collectives of three or fewer patients to jointly grow their own marijuana at one location and would allow patients to transport cannabis.

Huizar and fellow committee members Ed Reyes and Mitch Englander also
disapproved of a separate plan that would have the city refrain from prosecuting a set of about 100 dispensaries that follow strict restrictions on where they could operate, the hours they could be open, and requirements for tight security.

The committee, however, allowed the separate plan by Councilman Paul Koretz to move forward, citing a request by other council members to hear both plans at the same time before the full city council.

City officials have been trying since 2007 to regulate dispensaries and limit their number to close to 100. Early attempts led to an explosion in the number of dispensaries trying to establish before the city placed a cap on the total number of pot shops.

The city's effort to allow some dispensaries was thwarted by a ruling last October by California's 2nd District Court of Appeal, which struck down attempts by Long Beach to require marijuana collectives to register with the city and pay fees.

The court ruled that cities may pass laws restricting the rights of pot shops to operate, but regulations affirming the right for dispensaries to exist violate federal law, under which marijuana is listed as an illegal drug banned for all purposes.

Huizar said his plan, dubbed a "gentle ban" by the City Attorney's Office, is necessary because of poorly written state laws that do not allow dispensaries and provide too broad of a description of who can qualify for a medical marijuana prescription.

"If you don't like the state law, let's change the state law," Huizar told the committee and an audience of about two dozen marijuana advocates.

Attorney Steven Lubell, who represents dispensaries in a lawsuit against the city, said he understands the growth of illegal pot shops is out of control, but disagreed that banning dispensaries is the way forward.

"You're cutting off access to the patients, which is against what Proposition 215 says," Lubell said. "Instead of totally banning and waiting for the supremes to rule, have some form of regulation that works in the interim."

Medical marijuana supporters told the council that growing medical-grade
marijuana takes years of practice and expertise that average patients do not have.

The two competing plans will be heard by the public safety committee as early as Friday before heading to the full council.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Sherman Oaks Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
A. Abrams May 19, 2013 at 06:05 pm
As a parent who spent over 12 hours on site volunteering at CHAMPSFEST, I must say that CHAMPSRead More Parent's assessment above of the circumstances is exactly correct.
CHAMPS Parent May 19, 2013 at 05:43 pm
Dear Hollietiger, CHAMPSFEST2013 was an awesome experience for my child. She was there all day andRead More had the best time. When I dropped her off I saw a slew of security personnel checking bags and wanding. She told me security was there immediately and a medic on hand. Her friend is fine and is going to school Monday morning. The hammer was from a vendor. The kid could have grabbed one of the stakes from a tent or a chair. Things happen, but I trust that the school and the administrators did the right thing. It's very counter productive and irresponsible to write things when you don't know the facts. I will support and trust CHAMPS and my daughter is already looking forward to next years CHAMPSFEST.
Evan Sanford May 19, 2013 at 05:02 pm
First of all, I don't know where your child got his information but he is quite uninformed. HeRead More obviously was believing all the rumors spreading at then end of the event. The victim's skull WAS NOT "cracked open and ... bleeding everywhere." CHAMPSFEST 2013 was a public event, therefore open to the PUBLIC. CHAMPS (the school) has no control of mental competency of attendants from other schools. Security was there in droves to protect the entire venue. As far as nothing being reported that is also FALSE. The kid was NOT taken away in handcuffs. Police were there and it is confidential information that was not released to the general population and is not a matter of public record. Second of all, the resources provided by the city were there as a backup (you mentioned "2 ambulances, police fire trucks... Not really sure what police fire trucks are but that's besides the point). We wanted to make sure that in this case of emergency all bases were covered and the safety of the victim was going to be treated properly. Next time you hear about an incident, I would consider the reputation of the people who worked so hard to put on the event and let them handle the situation before posting incorrect information to the entire community.