Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Will California's New Medical MJ Regulations Force Closure of All Los Angeles Dispensaries
The way I read the regulations it appears that there is no way for any of the currently operating medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles to comply with the state law and obtain a state license by 2018. Major changes will need to be made for any of the existing dispensaries to comply with the state law and obtain a license to continue operating.
Will California's New Medical Marijuana Regulations Force Closure of All Los Angeles Dispensaries by 2018?
by Brett Stone
MMJNEWS group publisher
September 15, 2015
I've been reading the recently passed California legislation regulating medical marijuana over and over so many times since they've been made available I have certain pages memorized. But like watching a favorite film for the umpteenth time each time I read through the regulations I see something I didn't notice before.
The way I read the regulations it appears that there is no way for any of the currently operating medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles to comply with the state law and obtain a state license by 2018. Major changes will need to be made for any of the existing dispensaries to comply with the state law and obtain a license to continue operating.
I hope I am wrong and if you have a different opinion please feel free to write me and also please let me know if it would be ok to share your response with the group readers. I will not post any responses without the writers permission.
The first section in the state regulations I am looking at is AB 266, 19320(a) the text of which states:
"19320. (a) Licensing authorities administering this chapter may issue state licenses only to qualified applicants engaging in commercial cannabis activity pursuant to this chapter. Upon the date of implementation of regulations by the licensing authority, no person shall engage in commercial cannabis activity without possessing both a state license and a local permit, license, or other authorization. A licensee shall not commence activity under the authority of a state license until the applicant has obtained, in addition to the state license, a license or permit from the local jurisdiction in which he or she proposes to operate, following the requirements of the applicable local ordinance."
The second section in the state regulations I am looking at is AB 243, 11362.777 (b)(2)(3) the text of which states:
"11362.777. (a) The Department of Food and Agriculture shall establish a Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program to be administered by the secretary, except as specified in subdivision (c), shall administer this section as it pertains to the cultivation of medical marijuana. For purposes of this section and Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 19300) of the Business and Professions Code, medical cannabis is an agricultural product.
(b) (1) A person or entity shall not cultivate medical marijuana without first obtaining both of the following:
(A) A license, permit, or other entitlement, specifically permitting cultivation pursuant to these provisions, from the city, county, or city and county in which the cultivation will occur.
(B) A state license issued by the department pursuant to this section.
(2) A person or entity shall not submit an application for a state license issued by the department pursuant to this section unless that person or entity has received a license, permit, or other entitlement, specifically permitting cultivation pursuant to these provisions, from the city, county, or city and county in which the cultivation will occur.
(3) A person or entity shall not submit an application for a state license issued by the department pursuant to this section if the proposed cultivation of marijuana will violate the provisions of any local ordinance or regulation, or if medical marijuana is prohibited by the city, county, or city and county in which the cultivation is proposed to occur, either expressly or otherwise under principles of permissive zoning."
AB 266 19320. (a) and AB 243, 11362.777 (b)(2)(3) both require a "local permit, license, or other authorization" in order to obtain a state license.
Here in Los Angeles there currently are no permits to operate, no city licensing system and no specific legal authorization to operate.
In Los Angeles we are under the rules set forth in Proposition D.
Prop. D is a voter enacted initiative that is often referred to as "the limited immunity ordinance" in that it did not give the so called pre-ico medical marijuana businesses the legal right to operate in Los Angeles but instead just gave them limited immunity from law enforcement actions.
When I look at "SEC.45.19.6.3. LIMITED IMMUNITY" of Prop D beginning on the bottom of page 7 it clearly states that "a MMB (Medical Marijuana Business) shall not be a permitted use in the city."
If Prop D itself is stating that a Medical Marijuana Business shall not be a permitted use in the city then how can any of the currently operating dispensaries comply with the new state requirement of having a local permit, license or authorization by 2018?
The Los Angels City Attorney has an entire webpage just for medical marijuana information and since shortly after the initial passage of the 2007 ICO (Interim Control Ordinance) it had a link to a list of the MMB's that had met the city requirements at the time and updating the lists as new requirements and finally a list of the MMB's that were compliant with Prop D. A few months ago the LA City Attorneys office removed that link and replaced it with this message:
"***The document entitled "Proposition D: Existing Medical Marijuana Businesses Timely Registered Under ICO, TUO and Measure M" has been removed. This list did not confer any legal rights or grant any immunity to a specific MMB. The list was designed to let the public know which MMB's could potentially be immunized from enforcement actions based on their apparent satisfaction of three of the many requirements of Proposition D. A court - not the city - must determine whether an MMB has met all of Proposition D's requirements. To eliminate any confusion as to the significance of the list, it has been removed."
The way I read these new regulations all medical marijuana dispensaries will be killed in Los Angeles unless major changes are made in the state regulations or possibly another Los Angeles voter initiative to change or amend Prop D before 2018.
Thank you for reading and if you have a different view please feel free to share it. This is one time I want to be wrong in my interpretation but the more I read these new regs and Los Angeles current Prop D I can see no way for any of the currently operating dispensaries to comply and continue to operate unless major changes are made.
References:
AB 266, 19320(a) online @ https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB266
AB 243, 11362.777 (b)(2)(3) online @ https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB243
Los Angeles City Attorneys Office webpage on medical marijuana information @ http://www.lacityattorney.org/#!medical-marijuana/cgh5
A copy of Ordinance #182580 Enacting Prop D (from link on City Attorney page referenced above) @ http://freepdfhosting.com/089a847aae.pdf
by Brett Stone
MMJNEWS group publisher
September 15, 2015
I've been reading the recently passed California legislation regulating medical marijuana over and over so many times since they've been made available I have certain pages memorized. But like watching a favorite film for the umpteenth time each time I read through the regulations I see something I didn't notice before.
The way I read the regulations it appears that there is no way for any of the currently operating medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles to comply with the state law and obtain a state license by 2018. Major changes will need to be made for any of the existing dispensaries to comply with the state law and obtain a license to continue operating.
I hope I am wrong and if you have a different opinion please feel free to write me and also please let me know if it would be ok to share your response with the group readers. I will not post any responses without the writers permission.
The first section in the state regulations I am looking at is AB 266, 19320(a) the text of which states:
"19320. (a) Licensing authorities administering this chapter may issue state licenses only to qualified applicants engaging in commercial cannabis activity pursuant to this chapter. Upon the date of implementation of regulations by the licensing authority, no person shall engage in commercial cannabis activity without possessing both a state license and a local permit, license, or other authorization. A licensee shall not commence activity under the authority of a state license until the applicant has obtained, in addition to the state license, a license or permit from the local jurisdiction in which he or she proposes to operate, following the requirements of the applicable local ordinance."
The second section in the state regulations I am looking at is AB 243, 11362.777 (b)(2)(3) the text of which states:
"11362.777. (a) The Department of Food and Agriculture shall establish a Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program to be administered by the secretary, except as specified in subdivision (c), shall administer this section as it pertains to the cultivation of medical marijuana. For purposes of this section and Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 19300) of the Business and Professions Code, medical cannabis is an agricultural product.
(b) (1) A person or entity shall not cultivate medical marijuana without first obtaining both of the following:
(A) A license, permit, or other entitlement, specifically permitting cultivation pursuant to these provisions, from the city, county, or city and county in which the cultivation will occur.
(B) A state license issued by the department pursuant to this section.
(2) A person or entity shall not submit an application for a state license issued by the department pursuant to this section unless that person or entity has received a license, permit, or other entitlement, specifically permitting cultivation pursuant to these provisions, from the city, county, or city and county in which the cultivation will occur.
(3) A person or entity shall not submit an application for a state license issued by the department pursuant to this section if the proposed cultivation of marijuana will violate the provisions of any local ordinance or regulation, or if medical marijuana is prohibited by the city, county, or city and county in which the cultivation is proposed to occur, either expressly or otherwise under principles of permissive zoning."
AB 266 19320. (a) and AB 243, 11362.777 (b)(2)(3) both require a "local permit, license, or other authorization" in order to obtain a state license.
Here in Los Angeles there currently are no permits to operate, no city licensing system and no specific legal authorization to operate.
In Los Angeles we are under the rules set forth in Proposition D.
Prop. D is a voter enacted initiative that is often referred to as "the limited immunity ordinance" in that it did not give the so called pre-ico medical marijuana businesses the legal right to operate in Los Angeles but instead just gave them limited immunity from law enforcement actions.
When I look at "SEC.45.19.6.3. LIMITED IMMUNITY" of Prop D beginning on the bottom of page 7 it clearly states that "a MMB (Medical Marijuana Business) shall not be a permitted use in the city."
If Prop D itself is stating that a Medical Marijuana Business shall not be a permitted use in the city then how can any of the currently operating dispensaries comply with the new state requirement of having a local permit, license or authorization by 2018?
The Los Angels City Attorney has an entire webpage just for medical marijuana information and since shortly after the initial passage of the 2007 ICO (Interim Control Ordinance) it had a link to a list of the MMB's that had met the city requirements at the time and updating the lists as new requirements and finally a list of the MMB's that were compliant with Prop D. A few months ago the LA City Attorneys office removed that link and replaced it with this message:
"***The document entitled "Proposition D: Existing Medical Marijuana Businesses Timely Registered Under ICO, TUO and Measure M" has been removed. This list did not confer any legal rights or grant any immunity to a specific MMB. The list was designed to let the public know which MMB's could potentially be immunized from enforcement actions based on their apparent satisfaction of three of the many requirements of Proposition D. A court - not the city - must determine whether an MMB has met all of Proposition D's requirements. To eliminate any confusion as to the significance of the list, it has been removed."
The way I read these new regulations all medical marijuana dispensaries will be killed in Los Angeles unless major changes are made in the state regulations or possibly another Los Angeles voter initiative to change or amend Prop D before 2018.
Thank you for reading and if you have a different view please feel free to share it. This is one time I want to be wrong in my interpretation but the more I read these new regs and Los Angeles current Prop D I can see no way for any of the currently operating dispensaries to comply and continue to operate unless major changes are made.
References:
AB 266, 19320(a) online @ https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB266
AB 243, 11362.777 (b)(2)(3) online @ https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB243
Los Angeles City Attorneys Office webpage on medical marijuana information @ http://www.lacityattorney.org/#!medical-marijuana/cgh5
A copy of Ordinance #182580 Enacting Prop D (from link on City Attorney page referenced above) @ http://freepdfhosting.com/089a847aae.pdf
For more information:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mmjnew...
Add Your Comments
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$200.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network