Long Beach Dispensaries ban?

Discussion in 'Marijuana News' started by Bong666, Aug 3, 2012.

  1. An Open Letter To Our Community | LBCA
    "June 20, 2012

    by Greggory Moore in the LB Post

    “We're receiving a report,” enunciated Mayor Bob Foster, doing his best to minimize the contentious discussion he knew was coming as the Long Beach City Council revisited its ban on medical-marijuana dispensaries and the temporary exemptions for 18, exemptions slated to terminate on August 12. “We're not taking any action.”

    What the council did do Tuesday night was unanimously vote to “receive and file a report reviewing the status of [the ban], the operations and activities of the medical marijuana collectives that were provided a six-month exemption, and enforcement against non-exempted marijuana collectives and cultivations [sic] sites within the City of Long Beach.” But they did so contentiously.

    Part of the contention came from Councilmember Rae Gabelich, who asserted that the purpose of the report was supposed to have been a review of the status of the Pack decision as it moves toward its eventual review by the California Supreme Court; and moreover, that the purpose of the exemptions was not to give the 18 affected collectives time to wind down their operations, but to allow collectives that had gotten through the lottery process and complied with the City's now-repealed medpot ordinance to continue operation until the Pack appeal is heard. Considering the three years' worth of work the council has done to facilitate medpot patients getting their medicine, she said, “I don't think that throwing the baby out with the bathwater at this point is what we're really looking to do.”

    But that is exactly the course of action Mayor Bob Foster, Police Chief Jim McDonnell, and City Attorney Bob Shannon made clear they wish to follow - a course favored by several city council members, most of whom remained quiet during the hour-long discussion."








    Long Beach Post - County Ban on Medpot Dispensaries Ruled Illegal
    "June 20, 2012

    by Greggory Moore in the LB Post

    In a decision that may have major implications for the City of Long Beach's ban on medical-marijuana dispensaries, an appeals court has ruled that a similar ban imposed by Los Angeles County is preempted by state law.

    "[… T]he County's complete ban on all 'medical marijuana dispensaries,' including collectives and cooperatives authorized under Health and Safety Code section 11362.775, conflicts with, and is thus preempted by, California's medical marijuana laws," writes Judge P.J. Mallano in the unanimous decision handed down by the California Court of Appeals (2nd District) on July 2.

    The case, County of Los Angeles v. Alternative Medicinal Cannabis Collective, et al., concerns a ban of medpot dispensaries in all unincorporated areas of L.A. County, a ban the County contended did not conflict with the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program and was a "permissible land use regulation."

    However, noting that "[t]he electorate thus 'directed the state to create a statutory plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of medical marijuana to qualified patients,' to '[e]nhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects,'" the appeals court found that state law "expressly authorize collective, cooperative cultivation projects as a lawful means to obtain medical marijuana under California law," and that "such projects [are] beyond the reach of nuisance abatement under [HSC] section 11570, if predicated solely on the basis of the project's medical marijuana activities."

    While the City's ban, LBMC §5.89, does not directly cite HSC §11570, its explicit rationale concerns nuisance abatement ("negative secondary effects"), as well as zoning (i.e., land-use) issues.

    Due to the lateness of the issuance of the decision, the city attorney could not be immediately reached for comment.

    The ruling seems to implode many arguments made in defense of the legality of dispensary bans. For example, it has often been argued by city officials that storefront dispensaries, and sales of marijuana therein, are not authorized by state law. However, the appeals court found that the Medical Marijuana Program

    repeatedly refers to "medical marijuana cooperative, collective, dispensary, operator, establishment, or provider.” (§ 11362.768, subds. (b)–(g), italics added.) Subdivision (e) of section 11362.768 expressly contemplates that a “medical marijuana cooperative, collective, dispensary, operator, establishment, or provider” may have a “storefront or mobile retail outlet”: “This section shall apply only to a medical marijuana cooperative, collective, dispensary, operator, establishment, or provider that is authorized by law to possess, cultivate, or distribute medical marijuana and that has a storefront or mobile retail outlet which ordinarily requires a local business license.” (Italics added.) Further, an examination of the activities immunized by section 11362.775 reveals that the Legislature necessarily contemplated a dispensary function by collective or cooperative cultivation projects by authorizing such projects to maintain a place for the sale, use, and distribution of marijuana (§ 11366); use property to grow, store, and distribute marijuana (§ 11366.5); and possess marijuana to distribute (§ 11359).

    The court also found that many arguing for the legality of such bans "have relied upon an unduly narrow view of California's medical marijuana laws as providing only 'limited criminal immunities under a narrow set of circumstances.' […] Although section 11362.775 refers to 'criminal sanctions,' it also expressly affords immunity from nuisance abatement actions under section 11570 […]."

    "ased on this ruling, the current all out ban on medical marijuana dispensaries by the City of Long Beach appears to be preempted by state law, and cannot be enforced," said Jina A. Nam, an attorney for the Long Beach Collective Association, in a written statement. "The City Attorney's argument that dispensaries are not permitted under State Law is erroneous under this ruling. It also appears that if the City chooses one of the lesser measures such as a temporary moratorium or the types of regulations that were included in its old ordinance, that such measures would be allowed."

    Monday's ruling was the second such decision handed down by a state appeals court since Long Beach instituted its ban. In February, the California Court of Appeals (4th District) "conclude[d that] local governments may not prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries altogether," and that state law "exempts qualified medical marijuana patients and their primary caregivers not only from criminal prosecution for authorized collective or cooperative activities, but also from nuisance abatement proceedings. Thus, the Legislature has determined the activities it authorized at collective or cooperative cultivation sites, including a dispensary function, do not constitute a nuisance." "





    so is this good news what does it mean?:smoke:

     
  2. Doesn't look like it to me
     
  3. you guys have to understand that marijuana is illegal under federal laws. cities and counties cannot issue permits or licenses to allow a federally illegal substance to be distributed within it's limits, it doesn't matter Prop 215 was passed in 1996 because in 2010 the voters spoke again and this time they voted against legalization which was prop 19. now can everyone say "THANKS DICK LEE FOR FUCKING UP THE MOVEMENT"
     
  4. I think the blame goes more to chodes like this George asshole:


    From the RIPOFF REPORT
    Complaint Review: 420 College
    420 College medical marijuana Internet, California

    We put out $300 dollars to have a "consultation" with George "Grimes" this is not his real last name his real last name is "Boyadjian" Only to find out that he will NOT answer any questions after the consultation. He says "watch the videos!!" Well, the videos DO NOT tell you what to do at all. All that the videos do is give you false information. George REALLY screwed us over with his "consulting" He said we would be "legal" but when we talked to a lawyer basically all the information given by George was completely wrong! He gave us the wrong paperwork and the wrong information on what to write on these forms. If we had gone off what he said and filed everything we would have gotten in bad legal trouble. As our lawyer put it "Basically, all the information that George gave you is wrong and a piece of toilet paper would cover your a** more than this paperwork." Unfortunately, we had to learn the hard way and hope no one else gets pulled into his trap. Thankfully, we had enough knowledge to ask someone else for advice and good thing we did or else we would have ben taken to court.
     
  5. #5 420 Medical, Aug 23, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 23, 2012
    you conveniently forgot to post this part xdog:

    What a bunch of bull**** I am George Boyadjian, and I don't ever remember introducing myself as "Grimes" The person did purchase our skype consultation course and did receive the full counseling that was being purchased. Three months later he calls and asks me about a particular subject, and I gave him the answer to it. Then he writes an email asking the same question, so after once again answering the same question this time in an email, I sent him the link to our Online Video Course for FREE, which we sell online for $150, that is separate from the $300 consultation fee that he had already paid. I asked that he watches the videos and if he still has questions to call back. Some people understand things the 1st time you tell em other understand things the 5th time you tell em. In the case of this person who complained, he was the "gotta tell em 5th time" type of a person. I explained to him that we are a consulting firm and not a babysitting service, I also asked him, how many times do I have to answer the same question and cover the same subject for him to feel like he got his money's worth, and he couldn't answer. As far as the "toilet papers" he's referring to, they are actual papers from the Secretary of State's office in Sacramento. Also, I wouldn't trust a lawyer as far as I can throw him, so far who's ever met an honest lawyer? Not me. As far as I know lawyers will say and do anything to make a buck, so obviously he was gonna down grade our paperwork so he can sell his. Good luck in your venture buddy. If anyone needs help with the starting a business, look up California Attorney General's Guidelines.
     
  6. #6 420 Medical, Aug 23, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 23, 2012
    I think its because of people like the one who posted that garbage ass complaint online who didn't understand the consultation he was being given. I swear this is the only industry that I know of that everyone who don't know shit acts like they know everything. It really doesn't take more then once or twice to be told something to understand what's being tought.
     

Share This Page