What's new

LA pot law draft would set no limits

richyrich

Out of the slime, finally.
Veteran
LA pot law draft would set no limits
From wire reports
Posted: 11/30/2009 09:23:53 PM PST

The latest draft of Los Angeles' proposed medical marijuana ordinance does not set a limit on the amount of weed that can be sold at dispensaries, but requires dispensary operators to grow the drug themselves, an assistant city attorney said today.

Medical marijuana patients and their primary caregivers had complained about an earlier provision requiring dispensaries to have only up to five pounds of dried marijuana or 100 plants at any given time.

They said such limits would restrict access to the drug.

The Los Angeles Police Department had recommended the provision after seeing several dispensaries attacked by armed robbers.

But the City Attorney's Office decided to delete the provision after taking a closer look at Proposition 215, the statewide ballot measure that allows the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

Because the law did not set such limits, they would likely be a violation of the law, said Special Assistant City Attorney David Berger.

"We've proposed language that won't actually set a numerical limit but simply relate it to what is permitted under the Compassionate Use Act, which is what is reasonable for the needs of the patient," Berger added.

Berger said the latest draft of the proposed ordinance requires dispensaries to cultivate medical marijuana on their premises.

The City Attorney's Office added the provision after Councilman Jose Huizar insisted on making sure the weed was not coming from drug cartels or the black market.

Unresolved issues include a possible cap on the number of dispensaries; whether to set a limit on earnings to make sure they are really nonprofit ventures; and whether to tax medical marijuana transactions.
 

richyrich

Out of the slime, finally.
Veteran
They are getting closer to interpreting the statutes and case law as they stand now. But, they really can't say where the MMJ has to be grown. It can be off site some where else.

IME, dispensary operators are not going to like this one bit. They will never be able to keep up the supply in house to meet the demand; less $$$. And, many operators don't even know how to grow.

For those of you that are chomping at the bits to use my statement above to justify the current system of Ds; please, don't try. I know what I stated. I really don't want to have to copy and paste my previous posts on the subject.
 
J

JackTheGrower

Was that a polite way of saying don't quote me LOL..


Cool with me :snowkiss:

Hey what I like about it is that it makes seed saving more of a reality because shops will have to maintain genetics and that means they will have to keep genetics and Wa-La !!! We have a way to recharge the Genetic reserves..

Well I'm happy about more stability.. The uncertain-ness of no limits is out weighed buy the freedom to do good IMO.
 

richyrich

Out of the slime, finally.
Veteran
Was that a polite way of saying don't quote me LOL..


Cool with me :snowkiss:

Hey what I like about it is that it makes seed saving more of a reality because shops will have to maintain genetics and that means they will have to keep genetics and Wa-La !!! We have a way to recharge the Genetic reserves..

Well I'm happy about more stability.. The uncertain-ness of no limits is out weighed buy the freedom to do good IMO.

Ya, thinking ahead, lol.

If this happened then there would be more people getting what they paid for. Meaning, no name game. IME, there is a lot of bullshit naming of buds behind the counters.
 

richyrich

Out of the slime, finally.
Veteran
I see the dispensaries moving to the warehouse district. lol

Yes, I always thought of it myself. A lot of warehouse spots come with an office attached with a front door which could be use to disperse medication and if the patient comes to collectively work then they can head on back to the garden.
 

deejaycruise

New member
At a collective, when someone comes throught the door, they are there to work, either as a patient in exchange for a share of the meds, or as a caregiver in exchange for a share for the patient they caregive for. If anyone that comes through the door does not work and gets meds in exchange for cash only, it is a criminal operation because it does not comply with the laws.
That caregiver that performed work for a patient they caregive for is entitled to a cash reimbursement for expenses (including the membership fee) and a reasonable fee for services.
11362.775 does not have a section about reimbursements or service fees like is found in 11362.765 in section C.
The caregiver must be considered a caregiver to the patient without taking into consideration the provision of marijuana, or it is a criminal act and the affirmative defense will not be allowed.
Its a crime against the people that worked so hard for this medicine to operate in any manner inconsistent with the law, no one should support anyone that trys to profit from this gift from the people.
It allows for all to get their medicine even if physically unable through caregivers and even if just plain stupid through the collective. What it does not provide for is the lazy.
 

Koroz

Member
At a collective, when someone comes throught the door, they are there to work, either as a patient in exchange for a share of the meds, or as a caregiver in exchange for a share for the patient they caregive for. If anyone that comes through the door does not work and gets meds in exchange for cash only, it is a criminal operation because it does not comply with the laws.
That caregiver that performed work for a patient they caregive for is entitled to a cash reimbursement for expenses (including the membership fee) and a reasonable fee for services.
11362.775 does not have a section about reimbursements or service fees like is found in 11362.765 in section C.
The caregiver must be considered a caregiver to the patient without taking into consideration the provision of marijuana, or it is a criminal act and the affirmative defense will not be allowed.
Its a crime against the people that worked so hard for this medicine to operate in any manner inconsistent with the law, no one should support anyone that trys to profit from this gift from the people.
It allows for all to get their medicine even if physically unable through caregivers and even if just plain stupid through the collective. What it does not provide for is the lazy.

Sorry but I don't believe only the med users should have rights to use Cannabis. Second it is Medicine, and when I buy meds that are produced by big pharma I don't have to sign up and only stay with one Pharmacy, if I need meds and one is closer to my doctor one day, but another time when I need refills it is closer to my house I can go where I like to pick them up as long as they are notified before hand.

As soon as you start treating it like medication and not like a banned substance that only a few are entitled too maybe the minds of others will change with you.
 
U

uncle_shorty

jesus so many different laws for diff places...

just legalize the shit already
 

Kiffen

Member
Yes, I always thought of it myself. A lot of warehouse spots come with an office attached with a front door which could be use to disperse medication and if the patient comes to collectively work then they can head on back to the garden.

Yeah because that won't encourage violent robbery's, There is a reason they don't have a bank were they print the money. If they want to live in a utopia you must deal with the violent criminals or allow the citizens to deal with them; until then the LA city council is just wasting time and money, never-mind that the LAUSD is arguably the worst school system in the US. They need to wrap it up. The regulations that are needed are needed on a state level not locally, they need to address the schools and the crime levels here and leave the 215 issues to 215.

Stop trying to change what we passed, and do your jobs.
 

johnnyla

Active member
Veteran
so the D's are really going to grow their own meds?

or will they continue to buy from patient members?
 
J

JackTheGrower

At a collective, when someone comes throught the door, they are there to work, either as a patient in exchange for a share of the meds, or as a caregiver in exchange for a share for the patient they caregive for. If anyone that comes through the door does not work and gets meds in exchange for cash only, it is a criminal operation because it does not comply with the laws. .


I am thinking that there will be some who have no ability or time to actually work at it.. So I also understand that the AG said not all sales are illegal.

I mean how can we expect some patents to walk and use tools? They can contribute what the coop agrees is fair.

Cash is an easy way to keep it real.. It's all about being non-profit in the end. Any extra cash and we must give it back to the members.
 

SpasticGramps

Don't Drone Me, Bro!
ICMag Donor
Veteran
jesus so many different laws for diff places...

just legalize the shit already

Liquor laws across the US are still weird in some places. Even when weed is legal there are still going to be different laws everywhere. I can imagine the mess it's going to be at first. This would make for an interesting development though.
 
B

Blue Dot

But the City Attorney's Office decided to delete the provision after taking a closer look at Proposition 215, the statewide ballot measure that allows the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

Because the law did not set such limits, they would likely be a violation of the law, said Special Assistant City Attorney David Berger.

"We've proposed language that won't actually set a numerical limit but simply relate it to what is permitted under the Compassionate Use Act, which is what is reasonable for the needs of the patient," Berger added.

So the City Attorney's logic is to cite 215 as the reason for no limits yet is going to allow dispensaries when 215 doesn't even mention dispensaries. :rolleyes:

the insanity.
 
J

JackTheGrower

So the City Attorney's logic is to cite 215 as the reason for no limits yet is going to allow dispensaries when 215 doesn't even mention dispensaries. :rolleyes:

the insanity.

Aren't you reading? We have the right to do this because the Supreme Court said so.
 
B

Blue Dot

Aren't you reading? We have the right to do this because the Supreme Court said so.

215 doesn't say so (allowing dispensaries) and that is what the city attorney is using as his basis.

and what SC decision are you refering to anyway?

You're saying the SC said you could sell pot over the counter for profit?

When did they say that?
 

richyrich

Out of the slime, finally.
Veteran
They are getting closer to interpreting the statutes and case law as they stand now. But, they really can't say where the MMJ has to be grown. It can be off site some where else.

Yeah because that won't encourage violent robbery's, There is a reason they don't have a bank were they print the money.

True, but maybe you overlooked me state ^^^ that before your post.
 

richyrich

Out of the slime, finally.
Veteran
I am thinking that there will be some who have no ability or time to actually work at it.. So I also understand that the AG said not all sales are illegal.

I mean how can we expect some patents to walk and use tools? They can contribute what the coop agrees is fair.

Cash is an easy way to keep it real.. It's all about being non-profit in the end. Any extra cash and we must give it back to the members.

Check out the new thread I just posted out in the forum about an injunction on a dispensary to stop making sales.
 
Top