New Limits Put on D.C. Medical Marijuana
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('New Limits Put on D.C. Medical Marijuana');
 site = new Array(5);
 return false;

New Limits Put on D.C. Medical Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on March 20, 2012 at 19:49:51 PT
By Tom Howell Jr., The Washington Times
Source: Washington Times 
Washington -- The D.C. Council on Tuesday imposed new limits on the city’s medical marijuana program about two weeks before the long-awaited initiative is expected to begin in earnest.Lawmakers approved a proposal, through a 9-3 vote, that bans cultivation centers from opening in “retail priority areas” flagged for development on pockets of land across the District. Any applicants affected by the legislation can change their location within 180 days without it harming their request for registration from the city’s Department of Health to grow or sell the drug.
The legislation from council member Yvette M. Alexander, Ward 7 Democrat, will apply citywide. But the issue was spawned by complaints about a warehouse south of Benning Road in her ward, where up to 95 marijuana plants would be grown if one applicant obtains a registration this month.Plans are under way to build 376 residential units and 20,000 square feet of retail and restaurants “mere feet away from an intended cultivation site,” Ms. Alexander told the council.Debate on the measure was wideranging and confusing at times, with Ms. Alexander calling up her own measure for reconsideration, even though it had passed, because she realized an amendment by council member Phil Mendelson, at-large Democrat, would not mandate that cultivation centers relocate from retail-priority areas.“It just destroyed the intent of the bill,” she said of the amendment, which removed the language on retail areas and focused on allowing cultivation centers to relocate without facing a penalty.The bill appears most directly to affect Phyto Management — the applicant that picked a spot between Minnesota Avenue and Interstate 295 in Ward 7 — although it was written with all applicants in mind.Phyto’s principal, who is still waiting for registration from the city, declined to comment on the council’s actions on Tuesday.“They are willing to relocate,” Ms. Alexander said from the dais, noting she is committed to helping Phyto find a new location.Mr. Mendelson and council member David A. Catania, at-large independent, raised objections to altering the tightly regulated medical marijuana program that has been in the making since 1998, when city voters approved the program in a referendum before congressional intervention delayed its implementation for more than a decade.The council members, who oversee judiciary and health matters, played a key role in crafting medical marijuana regulations in recent years. The Department of Health is slated to award up to 10 registrations to cultivation centers on March 30 and up to five registrations for dispensary centers — where the drug is doled out — by June 8.Mr. Catania said objections to cultivation centers “pales in comparison to the controversy that is coming when we have to take up the issue of dispensaries.”“A cultivation center is simply a warehouse,” he said. “It’s fully self-contained, there is no obvious evidence of what is taking place inside, so therefore I don’t really feel it’s going to impede the economic development of a community.”Some council members were concerned about placing additional restrictions on the program, after the body’s decision in January to restrict the number of medical marijuana sites per ward to assuage Ward 5 residents who felt they were taking too many of the cultivation centers.Based on existing applications, the restriction limited the number of possible cultivation centers to seven, or six in Ward 5 and one in Ward 7. The number could be cut to six if Phyto Management runs into problems relocating.“It’s having an adverse effect on the program because it’s limiting the supply,” Mr. Mendelson said.Council member Jim Graham, Ward 1 Democrat, joined Mr. Mendelson and Mr. Catania in voting against the bill.Mr. Mendelson initially voted for the bill but withdrew his support after Ms. Alexander killed his amendment to exclusively address the relocation process. From the dais, he said Ms. Alexander’s bill did not need language on retail priority areas if current applicants were truly ready and willing to move.“There was disingenuousness in the debate,” Mr. Mendelson said after the meeting.Source: Washington Times (DC)Author: Tom Howell Jr., The Washington TimesPublished: March 20, 2012Copyright: 2012 The Washington Times, LLC Website: letters URL: Medical Marijuana Archives 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 

Comment #8 posted by museman on March 23, 2012 at 11:59:41 PT
From a generational viewpoint, I can see the 'short view', held by many who have recently become aware of the duplicity, deception, and mis-representation that embodies our 'government'. That, simply put, is the belief that this state of affairs is fairly recently come about. There is an idea here that somehow the ideals and codes of ethical behavior -sovereign liberty- were achieved and ratified by the estabishment (OR re-establishment) of this particular Republic, closely modeled, even in its 'royal' architecture, after Rome.Yes there is a stark contrast to the INTENT of the American Revolution, which the people believed they were fighting and dying for -exemplified in those words by Thomas Jefferson; 
"We hold these truths...etc" in the Declaration of Independence -which was a declaration of our intent- to the actual result that was the constitution.The fact that moneyed interests pretty much hi-jacked the process from the moment that Britain withdrew, seems to escape the history texts found -at least in my day- in the schools and library.This state of affairs we find ourselves in, where a handful of modern aristocrats called 'politicians' are playing at war, economic acquisition through war and threat of war. Where their corporate 'alter egos' (corporations are people too!) rape and pillage what is left of our forests, minerals, and other natural resources in the most expedient, wasteful, toxic, and polluting manner imaginable -to repeat some of the well known facts of the conditions of this time- this did not just recently come about!I do agree with the final statement in that article though;"The best way to vote for change is to re-elect none of them."Its at least a start. But if we just elect another set of lawyer/wealth/corporate programmed politicians, whats the difference?LEGALIZE FREEDOM
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by afterburner on March 23, 2012 at 11:22:30 PT
museman #2
What happened to our government? (opinion).
Wednesday, March 21, 2012 by: Hesh Goldstein.
Learn more:
Excerpt: {
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".These words are from our Declaration of Independence, and unfortunately, not from our Constitution. And from these principles, we Americans, lay claim to a rather unique and somewhat revolutionary legacy. That being that every person can lay claim to his or her own sovereignty just by being born, and that these rights don't come from any government or person.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by FoM on March 22, 2012 at 10:43:40 PT
I believe it is because of the way they are being set up in D.C. I think it's different in the states you mentioned.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by mykeyb420 on March 22, 2012 at 10:32:04 PT
why are they closing clubs in calif, washington, colorado, and all the MMJ states, and opening them in DC?
if its good enough for our nations capitol. why not the rest of the USA?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by FoM on March 21, 2012 at 18:58:25 PT
I just keep quiet and don't even try to talk to a person who is Conservative. They get angry and I don't like angry people. I believe what I believe and no one can convince me otherwise and that's what Conservatives seem to like to try to do. I can't get over the hatred I have read towards Obama over the last few years. They don't appreciate a slow to anger person being in charge that is smart and knows how to listen.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by afterburner on March 21, 2012 at 18:45:35 PT
Fear vs. Love
AlterNet / By Sara Robinson.
Conservative Bullying Has Made America Into a Broken, Dysfunctional Family: But There Are Ways to Regain Our Well-Being.
 An abusive, out-of-control, rageaholic GOP broke our country by shattering our trust in democracy and in ourselves. 
March 20, 2012 Brand New One.
body mind spirit love
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by museman on March 21, 2012 at 10:12:36 PT
The STATE is NOT the people!The US Constitution states that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."There is no constitutional law governing cannabis prohibition, therefore the 'right' to smoke pot is constitutionally guaranteed, except for all the money-powered lawyers and lawyer-politician who lounge around in their people-built gubernatorial palaces, doing very little except to make people miserable, and joke about it. They hold us all in thrall to their lies and UNCONSTITUTIONAL power, because they have too many convinced that their corruption, obfuscation, deceit, and malignant character is 'politically and morally correct.'So, even though we have this 'constitutional' guarantee of our liberties, we have no representation, and all the offices of the government are totally controlled by 1% of the population.Th STATE represents that 1%, not us.Congress (all lawyers since, well, after George Washington, breaking up the monotony with a general or two here and there, like a good Roman Republic would do.) did not 'enumerate' a constitutional 'law' prohibiting cannabis use, and though it forces the states to comply through economic carrots on sticks, the states didn't either. This is simple fact, common knowledge to those who actually bother to read the constitution, so why hasn't some 'lawyer' successfully challenged this BS?Why do you think?The 'commerce act' is what they did, and technically, and constitutionally, this law only governs transport of contraband across state lines and national borders. They over-reached their actual authority the first time they busted someone for 'possession' on the street, but people are so damned brainwashed, a lot of them actually 'confess' to a crime!Revolution does not work, as long as the majority are willing to go right back to the same old status quo, and that is the false belief in the value of property and money, which translates to political power and control before, and after every attempt made to free the people.The only revolution that is going to work is a revolution in consciousness. When the majority believe in the power of the rulers, the rulers have that to back them up at every turn, and even if one ruler is deposed, they have many willing to take the position for their own power and edification, and nothing changes.When a majority can value Love as the highest form of value available in this existence, then, and only then will there be any significant change.Want to hang on to your selfishly gained and held property and money? Even the wealthiest can only live so long, and in the end, that wealth amounts to exactly what it really is; Nothing.LEGALIZE FREEDOM
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by museman on March 21, 2012 at 09:42:27 PT
"Majority Rules"
Except for cases involving personal liberties.The BS handed down to us from our 'betters' is that 'majority' rules. It's a snafu-catch-22. Apparently, the cop, judge, lawyer definition of 'majority rules' is 'whoever has the most money is the majority.'How else could "But the issue was spawned by complaints..." which is conveniently not explained, be some kind of legal reason to f--k with people.During Reagan's reign - an aspect of his hate for the counterculture- an 'ordinance' was inacted in every town and city in the nation. It was a 'sound' or 'noise' ordinance that effectively outlawed live performance of music in public without special 'permits' and 'fees.' The wording, throughout the country is the same, except the times that each city/town would choose as the point the 'noise' part comes into play.The juris-prudence of the police officers dealing with these  non-people-enacted laws states that all that is needed to arrest, harass, prosecute, and fine, anyone who 'violates' the ordinances, is one person, whose 'reasonable complaint' is enough to overthrow and violate the rights and privileges of large groups of people at a whim.So the "... the issue was spawned by complaints.." is most likely some stuck up rich person who can't stand anyone having a good time without them having their profit-motivated greedy little fingers in it. One old prude angry at life because she couldn't find a man that would feed her un-natural sense of self worth is all it takes. These 'people' who claim to represent our interests just plain DON'T! What's it gonna take to set this stuff right?Not a continuation of the same old political/economic crap that got us to this point in the first place.If 'Majority rules' then these occupiers of political, responsible positions are not listening to the majority -which of course is not they who make the laws, but the people they make the laws against.Just another expose of the many lies passed off as something else by every government official -regardless of their rank and position. The f--n secretary is as responsible as the judge she works for, and all the rest of the 'supportive' employees who kiss the ass of the status quo for a living.Its a hard rain gonna fall.Better start cleaning up the act folks.There is still time.LEGALIZE FREEDOM
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment