Cities, Counties No Longer Mellow About Pot
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('Cities, Counties No Longer Mellow About Pot');
 site = new Array(5);
 return false;

Cities, Counties No Longer Mellow About Pot
Posted by CN Staff on November 10, 2009 at 06:20:03 PT
By John Hoeffel
Source: Los Angeles Times
California --  As hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries have opened this year in a startling rollout across California, unnerved local officials have started to push back aggressively.Many cities and a few counties have banned them. Others have imposed emergency moratoriums. And some have started to sue dispensaries to force them to close. So far, the state's courts have sided with local officials.
For marijuana advocates, who have seen over-the-counter sales become commonplace and watched the steady drift of California's vibrant weed counterculture into the mainstream, these setbacks are a discordant development."At this point, we're not winning a battle we should be winning," said Joe Elford, chief counsel for Americans for Safe Access, who believes that local bans violate state law. "There's been this kind of backlash of 'Let's give ourselves this great enforcement tool of just banning dispensaries.' "Three years ago, Elford's organization found that 29 California cities had banned dispensaries. Now, at least 120 have done so, according to advocates and opponents of medical marijuana. That's a quarter of the state's cities. In recent months, the pace appears to have accelerated. The number of cities allowing dispensaries has grown much more slowly, from two dozen to about 30.Last week, Red Bluff, about 130 miles north of Sacramento, became the latest city to vote for a ban, one that outlaws not only dispensaries, but also collectives and marijuana cultivation. This week, Nevada City, a postcard-perfect Gold Rush city in the Sierra foothills, is likely to follow.Los Angeles, the apogee of the uncontrolled dispensary boom, has become the scare story that has driven many other cities to act. The city attorney's office estimates that about 1,000 dispensaries have opened, most of them after a moratorium that was adopted in 2007."We actually tell cities around the state to look at the failure in Los Angeles," said Paul Chabot, the founder of the Coalition for a Drug Free California. "That's why the cities are moving fast and furious across the state to adopt bans."This blow-back has come as local politicians look at the experiences of other cities and decide that they don't much like what they see: Anyone who wants to smoke pot can easily get a doctor's recommendation; dispensaries can attract crime; and some operators are in it for the money even though profits are prohibited.Even places widely seen as pot-friendly have become wary.Santa Cruz passed a law in 2000 to allow dispensaries. One opened in 2005, another in 2006, in the same industrial area. City officials say they have not had any trouble with them.But Mike Ferry, a Santa Cruz city planner, said he was inundated with inquiries about opening dispensaries after the Obama administration announced in March that federal agents would lay off stores that adhered to state law."It goes from a trickle to a call a day, from all over the state and even out of the state," he said.The city studied its dispensaries and learned that about three-quarters of their customers were not from Santa Cruz. The prospect of being a regional marijuana hub did not excite city leaders."We kind of felt like we were going to end up with a concentration," he said.City officials have recommended a cap at two.Some towns that once welcomed dispensaries have switched off the "Vacancy" sign. Dixon, a bedroom community on Interstate 80 between the Bay Area and Sacramento, decided years ago to allow dispensaries. None opened. This year, several people who did not live in the city inquired about starting one.This was surprising to Jack Batchelor, the mayor. Why Dixon, a city of about 17,500?"My sense is that it would be people living outside Dixon and driving by," Batchelor said.Given the push-the-envelope innovation in California's marijuana industry, Batchelor's fear that his city might host the first drive-through dispensary doesn't seem far-fetched. It was not an appealing prospect, he said.The more Batchelor learned, the more he worried. On the web, he realized how easy it was for anyone to get a doctor's recommendation for marijuana. He read reports that dispensaries attract crime. And he decided that he didn't believe that the aspiring dispensary operators had approached Dixon out of compassion for its residents."It's a monetary issue," he said. "Here's a way to expand their business."In August, Dixon's City Council banned the stores.Other cities, including many in the Inland Empire and Orange County, have similarly enacted outright bans.Laguna Beach adopted a ban in September. Mayor Kelly Boyd said school officials urged the city to prohibit dispensaries. "We saw what was happening in other cities, and how they were rapidly growing and opening, and we didn't want that happening in our city," he said.At least eight of California's 58 counties now have bans.Supervisors in Madera County, in the Central Valley, voted unanimously in September to outlaw dispensaries after listening to almost two dozen supporters. One after another, they pleaded to be allowed to buy marijuana at the county's two dispensaries, telling emotional stories of how it helped them deal with anxiety, glaucoma, lupus, asthma, chronic pain and headaches. One man, who said he was a veteran and suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome, said, "I don't know why you are being backward about it."But the board was swayed by the sheriff who cited crime statistics, insisted a vote for dispensaries would be a vote to violate federal law, noted that county voters had rejected the 1996 medical marijuana initiative and offered this opinion of dispensary operators: "They're not compassionate caregivers, they're criminals."Elford and other advocates for medical marijuana argue that it is the bans that are illegal and insist that the California Supreme Court will eventually invalidate them. "They can't pass ordinances that are inimical to a matter of statewide concern," said Elford, who has provided legal counsel on many of the state's medical marijuana cases.Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown concluded last year that dispensaries run by collectives "may be lawful," but did not address whether cities and counties could outlaw them.So far, cities have won several cases in state courts.As cities wait to see whether an appeals court will uphold a ban imposed by Anaheim, they have embraced another appellate court ruling. The state 2nd District Court of Appeal recently ruled for Claremont in its three-year battle with a dispensary that opened after the city denied it a business license and permit. The panel decided the state's medical marijuana laws did not stop the city from enforcing its licensing and zoning requirements.That approach -- using licensing and zoning rules to keep dispensaries out of town -- is becoming increasingly popular with cities. A Superior Court judge recently sided with Fresno and ordered nine dispensaries to shut down. In the Bay Area, Walnut Creek has issued daily $500 fines to a dispensary that officials say violates its zoning rules and have filed suit. City Atty. Paul Valle-Riestra estimates the total fine at about $15,000. "Clearly, there seems to be a lot of money involved in this, and they don't seem to bat an eye at those kind of penalties," he said.Lake Forest in Orange County has seen many dispensaries open in strip malls near the junction of the 5 and 405 freeways. The city has sued 21 dispensaries; five have closed.Red Bluff officials said the Claremont decision emboldened them to push for their sweeping ban. As in Claremont, a dispensary opened in Red Bluff without permission, triggering the City Council's action. But city leaders also worried about crime and complaints of people smoking pot at houses used as collectives."You can really just start seeing that there's a dark side to this," said Scott Timboe, the city's planning director, "and so it was really the dark side that our community was concerned about."Note: At least 120 cities and eight counties in California have banned medical pot shops, fearing crime and profiteering. Some cite the proliferation of dispensaries in L.A.Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)Author: John HoeffelPublished: November 10, 2009Copyright: 2009 Los Angeles TimesContact: letters latimes.comWebsite: Medical Marijuana Archives
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 

Comment #19 posted by josephlacerenza on November 10, 2009 at 16:21:41 PT
Glycerol can also be used to make a tincture. The same tincture can be used in the e cigs and inhaled like a vap. The glycerol is sweet but does not cause the same ill effects as sugar for diabetics!!!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by Hope on November 10, 2009 at 13:46:00 PT
Wonderful news!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by FoM on November 10, 2009 at 13:22:45 PT
I have used both kinds of tinctures with medicinal herbs. The alcohol tincture does work faster. I was told to put the alcohol tincture in a cup of hot coffee with milk and let it sit a few minutes and the alcohol will evaporate but the medicine will still be there to drink. I think that's true but I could be wrong.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by EAH on November 10, 2009 at 13:18:51 PT:
Cannabis tincture has been available. I had a source for tincture made with laboratory methods that I supplied to the local dispensary. It is the safest
method of ingestion. While not as fast acting as smoke or vapor, it's faster than eatables and dosage is 
very easy to control with precision. Eatables are fine but take effect very slowly
and are difficult to dose accurately. There is one issue with tincture, in that it is usually alcohol based. This helps it to be very clean, pure and absorb quickly, but some people have issues with alcohol. Glycerin tincture is available too but it takes longer to make and 
it behaves differently.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by FoM on November 10, 2009 at 13:12:29 PT
I read The Denver Post will cover it. As soon as I find it or you find it or someone finds it I will get it posted. We are getting way more good news then bad these days. It's wonderful.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by The GCW on November 10, 2009 at 12:57:00 PT
Update /stealth Colorado meeting court decission
BREAKING: Legal Victory for Patients and Providers 
This morning, Sensible Colorado attorneys delivered a victory in overturning the Board of Health's 10/19/9 decision which limited patients rights.  See coverage of this story HERE
As background, late on Monday Nov. 2, Sensible Colorado received word that the state was holding a stealth meeting to narrow the definition of who could provide medical marijuana. Our staff immediately sent out an alert and over 200 of our supporters responded by either calling-in or attending the Board's 11/3 meeting. At that meeting, after refusing to hear from any affected patients or caregivers, the Board voted to require caregivers to provide supplementary-- and often unnecessary services-- beyond supplying medical marijuana to sick patients.
Today, Sensible Colorado Board member Robert Corry, along with staff member Brian Vicente, and attorney Lauren Davis, successfully argued that the 11/3 "stealth" meeting was a violation of the Colorado Open Meetings Law. After hearing about the state's complete disregard for public testimony and their lack of notice to affected parties, Chief Denver District Chief Larry Naves ruled in favor of patients and invalidated the Board's recent finding.
Sensible Colorado wants to thank the two patients involved in this lawsuit, as well as the hundreds of patients and supporters who attended-- or tried to attend-- these hearings. What does this mean for patients and providers? Judge Naves ruling means that, under Colorado law, medical marijuana caregivers can continue to simply provide medical marijuana for patients and are not required to provide supplementary services. Please stay tuned for further alerts, as this area of the law is dynamic.'m sure media will cover this too.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by FoM on November 10, 2009 at 12:22:00 PT
Just a Comment
A person could make a tincture of cannabis and that wouldn't be smoking. They have tincture of opium available so why not cannabis?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by FoM on November 10, 2009 at 11:58:01 PT
Excerpt From The Associated Press
November 10, 2009Excerpt: In other action Tuesday, the AMA moved closer to supporting medical marijuana, adopting a measure urging a federal review of marijuana's status as a controlled substance. That would make it easier to do research, which the AMA said could lead to development of marijuana-based medications that don't require smoking. The group said its position doesn't mean it supports legalizing marijuana.On the Net:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by runruff on November 10, 2009 at 11:53:43 PT
Uncle Sam loses another lap dog!
After 35 years of scorching political heat this lap dog has deserted!The AMA was a big one. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by FoM on November 10, 2009 at 11:10:13 PT
AMA Urges 'Review' of Pot Prohibition
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by James Crosby on November 10, 2009 at 10:57:51 PT:
Check it!
Check this out! This should be watched very close!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by FoM on November 10, 2009 at 09:30:10 PT
The Medical Marijuana Business Matures
November 10, 2009URL:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by FoM on November 10, 2009 at 09:25:29 PT
That's wonderful! Thank you. I hope we get some good articles from this ruling.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by HempWorld on November 10, 2009 at 09:15:31 PT
Thanks mydnytmover!
This is huge! This is the beginning of the end! (of prohibition on marijuana/cannabis.)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by mydnytmover on November 10, 2009 at 08:55:22 PT
AMA Report Recognizes Medical Benefits of Marijuan
Americans for Safe Access
For Immediate Release: November 10, 2009AMA Report Recognizes Medical Benefits of Marijuana, Urges Further Research
Largest and oldest U.S. physician-based group reverses long-held position on medical marijuanaHouston, TX -- The American Medical Association (AMA) voted today to reverse its long-held position that marijuana be retained as a Schedule I substance with no medical value. The AMA adopted a report drafted by the AMA Council on Science and Public Health (CSAPH) entitled, "Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes," which affirmed the therapeutic benefits of marijuana and called for further research. The CSAPH report concluded that, "short term controlled trials indicate that smoked cannabis reduces neuropathic pain, improves appetite and caloric intake especially in patients with reduced muscle mass, and may relieve spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis." Furthermore, the report urges that "the Schedule I status of marijuana be reviewed with the goal of facilitating clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines, and alternate delivery methods."
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by FoM on November 10, 2009 at 07:48:17 PT
Thank you. I haven't been involved in our state's politics since I want to focus on all states. I didn't know our Senate was mostly Republican. That would stop change dead in its tracks in my opinion.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by ekim on November 10, 2009 at 07:36:13 PT
A Brief History 
A Brief History of the Effort to Legalize Medical Marijuana in Ohio 1997-Present
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by FoM on November 10, 2009 at 07:07:31 PT
Thank you for the link.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by josephlacerenza on November 10, 2009 at 06:37:26 PT
Good Morning C-News
Found this bit on the Huff Po
CNN's Wolf Blitzer Discussing Cannabis
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment