Pubdate: Tue, 2 Feb 2010
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Page: A17
Copyright: 2010 Los Angeles Times
Contact: http://mapinc.org/url/bc7El3Yo
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/248
Author: Jose Huizar
Note: Jose Huizar represents the 14th District on the Los Angeles 
City Council.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?253 (Cannabis - Medicinal - U.S.)

L.A. CAN'T GO IT ALONE ON POT

To Make the City's New Ordinance Work As Effectively As Possible, 
Legislators Need to Clarify the State's Medical Marijuana Laws

The Los Angeles City Council last week finally adopted a medical 
marijuana ordinance. Though not perfect, it balances the needs of 
local communities with those of patients who truly need access to 
medical marijuana. And it will rein in an out-of-control situation in 
which a federally banned substance has been sold for the last four 
years as hundreds of dispensaries proliferated in the city of Los 
Angeles, with no local regulations and ambiguous state laws to guide us.

To make the new ordinance work as effectively as possible, 
legislators need to clarify the state's medical marijuana laws -- 
Proposition 215 and its accompanying SB 420. Both are silent or vague 
on critical issues for the practical implementation at the local level.

As cities throughout California draft ordinances, they are grappling 
with issues that they have no power over and that should be handled 
at the state level. Moreover, they are trying to pinpoint evolving 
and changing court rulings interpreting state law.

In Los Angeles, one of the most difficult issues was what constitutes 
a "sale." My colleagues on the City Council and I addressed this by 
stipulating that although no collective shall operate for profit, 
"cash and in-kind contributions, reimbursements and reasonable 
compensation" are allowed as long as they comply with current state 
law. However, we don't know how this provision will be enforced 
because we are relying on state law that is unclear and in litigation.

It is also unclear whether the over-the-counter dispensary model was 
what voters intended when they approved Proposition 215. The law 
might have intended a much more limited distribution of marijuana, 
such as having either patients or their caregivers grow their own 
product or having collectives grow a small amount and reimburse 
members for their labor.

Without clarity from the state, the council also had to punt on the 
issues of cultivation and transportation of marijuana by saying that 
the ordinance would abide by state law.

Cultivation is important because the ordinance as written does not 
address where the collectives will obtain their marijuana. Will it be 
grown locally, imported from Northern California or bought on the 
black market? And are people who transport the marijuana to and from 
collectives immune from prosecution?

Another issue that is not being addressed locally but perhaps is the 
biggest impediment to properly regulating dispensaries relates to the 
wide discretion and relative immunity that physicians have in 
recommending medical marijuana to patients. When most of us have a 
medical issue, we don't look through the pages of alternative 
weeklies to find a physician. We go to the doctor who knows the most 
about our medical history -- our primary-care physician.

Yet under state law there is no requirement to curb abuse by having 
people see their primary-care physician first, or, as Oregon does, to 
require that a patient get a note from an "attending physician" with 
whom he or she has an established patient/physician relationship.

It's interesting to note that Oregon, like several other states, only 
allows medical marijuana for a narrow list of conditions. In 
contrast, in California, marijuana can be recommended for anything 
from cancer to writer's cramp. So, although California voters have 
not (yet) directed the state to legalize marijuana for nonmedical 
use, the state medical marijuana law has created de facto 
legalization because practically anyone can become a qualified patient.

Given these ambiguities, the city has provided an ordinance within 
existing state law that does its best to create access for medical 
marijuana patients while protecting local communities from potential 
negative consequences.

The council voted to support a requirement that dispensaries be at 
least 1,000 feet from sensitive-use areas where children and families 
gather, such as schools, playgrounds and places of worship -- and 
from other dispensaries.

We also capped the number of collectives at 70 (instead of the 
estimated 700-plus that exist) and required notification to 
neighborhood councils before new dispensaries open in their areas. To 
control profiteering, we also required annual audits and outlawed 
common ownership of multiple collectives.

I, like a majority of California voters, voted in favor of 
Proposition 215 because I believe that patients dealing with cancer, 
AIDS, chronic pain and other serious ailments should have access to 
medical marijuana.

However, I remain concerned about profiteers looking to make a quick 
buck, recreational users looking to use an ambiguous state law to 
their advantage and less-than-scrupulous doctors willing to play 
along by writing quick and unverified recommendations. Though 
seemingly innocuous to some, these unchecked activities can lead to 
real problems in local communities should the state refuse to further 
regulate medical marijuana. I encourage state legislators to 
immediately amend SB 420 to deal with its ambiguities.

In the future, if the voters legalize marijuana for recreational use, 
I would hope that the state provides clear and practical rules for 
local implementation, unlike what has occurred with medical marijuana.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake