There were more adjustments to proposed ordinance and just as Council Presiden Eric Garcetti was going to cut things short and skip public comment until next Tuesday when it would be time to see the new language of the proposed ordinance. Janice Hahn spoke up to make the downtown trip worthwhile for the crowd who still only had one minute to comment.
Next Tuesday, more comment is going to happen since the changes will then be presented. At yesterday's meeting, there were an assortment of reasons for "favoring" the marijuana dispensaries- and at this point, it's hard to draw the line between those present who have interest in a "recreational use" more so than a "medicinal use." Some of the Council Members are already influenced by the numbers and are saying "the medicinne" instead of marijuana. I hear CM Huizar fall back into this usage last month.
One concern voiced by my CM (Huizar) was the prevention of an "over-concentration" of Dispensaries in any area. From a language viewpoint, I think it should be just phrased, "avoiding a concentration" because "over-concentration" is an unnecessary redundancy- and I think THAT phrase might itself be redundant. If you notice, the language in city council and other political areas is very long and drawn out and then when you get these guys (and women) to speak in simple direct English, they over-simplify or make illogical statements.
I have heard people in science fields speak and it's another world, with more easily understool terms to explaing ideas and operations. But remember, those in the science fields WANT people to understand the concepts presented. Politicians usually don't have the same goal. Science people understand what they are trying to do- Check politicians and other than staying in office- they squirm to try to please the largest numbers of potential votes out there.
So, back to City Council and MMDs and Marijuana Ordinances- The big problem was HOW FAR (or the reverse view, "how CLOSE") can an MMD be to residential areas, residences and anything else. 1,000 feet was initially the plan, but Ed Reyes and Rosendahl appear to be the most lax in moving this along with Rosendahl ready to legalize marijuana without the Medical part needed. Garcetti, for all his slickness, is moving along the same direction.
I think that the move to favor "legalization" of marijuana in any degree, is influenced by the budget issues that L.A. is experiencing that may move to bankruptcy for the city at some point soon. The idea of taxation of the product has them with dollar signs in their eyes. The state level has some proposals for legalization of pot altogether with a proposed tax of $50 per ounce to get the some dollars from the deal. That tax might work to chase people back to street dealers who might undercut the price, but that "tax as a solution" is getting some desperate ideas to sprout. In any event, the federal law still would not allow a state's legalization to neutralize the federal statute, so things would just get more messy, not clearer.
And this marijuana ordinance is really wandering way off the path that the state law's apparent concept, as flawed as it may have been in providing any city with proper guidance. A lot of comment "for" the marijuana side really was off. The Council IS going to approve some ordinance. The question is really HOW STRICT will the terms be and HOW MANY shops/dispensaries will be actually be allowed to operate with the ordinance in place?
The Council, like other cities, could have just outright banned the MMDs in the first place and that looks like it could have been a wiser choice and then when things become clearer, re-visit the issue. What happened now is like some kind of Gold Rush era operation for people to get their feet in the door to get rich. That clearly is not part of the vision of the Compasionate Use Act. There were some speaking at the Council meeting who were treating this issue as a business and not as a true "collective," that from my memory of terms in my college days, was about a "group" effort, with a "profit" not the goal. Survival of the collective's efforts was the idea.
That's amounting to "sales" no matter what they want to call it. Some comments mentioned letting all the moms and pops make a living and right there, I think they missed the idea. The collective aspect is really just a break-even kind of deal, not a "maximize profit" idea that you see in corporate settings. It's really nearly a volunteer effort in it's basic form, but we have progressed and there sure will be some more "misinterpretations" brought out as we go along.
The classes in setting up MMDs were not for just the experience of being a service provider as much as there were aimed at having their "students" get in on a highly profitable enterprise.
The real patients who could benefit from the MMDs really are not helped by the recreational usage people who try to come in under the camouflaged "medically needy" side of things. They really hurt the idea. Making a stand for the outright legalization of marijuana and not hiding behind any medical purpose, would make that crowd more honest.
And I remember that there was some problems with the city department of Building and Safety from the hearings in the last few months on this topic- the B&S people kept falling back on the lack of staff to perform investigations and inspections due to shortages of staff. This is the same department that could not even determine which billboards were set up legally and which were built without any permits. That inablity will no doubt affect policing of the MMDs situation and the Coucil is trying to give them the lightest duty possible because, really, you know they will not be able to inpect properly in either degree or timeliness.
Well, that's the city and what they should be doing now is CUTTING expenses. For a different view on the process, see "L.A. City Council Delays Medical Marijuana Vote Until Jan. 19," BY DON DUNCAN in the Opposing View blog. http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-l-a-city-council-delays-medical-marijuana-vote-until-jan-19-r-1263488990
Don Duncan, you may remember from the LA WEEKLY story last year, was probably the major consultant to city council members for how the MMD situation should be handled, especially as to formation of an ordinance according to the WEEKLY'S story. [for that story see-
"L.A.'s Medical-Weed Wars- How the potheads outwitted Antonio Villaraigosa and the L.A. City Council," By PATRICK RANGE MCDONALD AND CHRISTINE PELISEK Published on November 23, 2009 at 11:49pm- http://www.laweekly.com/2009-11-26/news/l-a-39-s-medical-weed-wars/ ]
BREAST FEEDING- CREATING LACTATION ROOMS IN CITY BUILDINGS, AGENDA ITEM 9.
That LACTATION ROOM creation was put off to JAN. 20 for further action- CM Cardenas really needs to step back and see the big picture- worry about keeping the city alive without getting to the details of making more expenses which are not essential. This is something that everyone needs to see. Tough out the times, and the lactation issues have continued for years and were dealt with before, maby not happily so, but it's not the time now to add to city woes.
And that's just opinion since I am not in on any of this, nor was my opinion requested by anyone in the city. You can probably see why.
Posts
