Los Angeles ordering hundreds of dispensaries to close

[bterzz]

If average, aka "median", incomed people were not buying medicine there wouldnt be "more dispensaries than starbucks". (Not to mention low incomed ill patients who willingly pay for there medicine like the rest of us, but couldn't be here on there high speed internet and computer to complain how they cant "afford" there medicine, unlike you)

And if growing medicine was so fuckking cheap like you assume the market would be so flooded all the dispensaries would go out of business and thousands of people would lose there jobs (like you want).

PS: If you wanna make a difference, grow a bunch of cheap quality fucking medicine yourself and donate it to someone who is in need of it. You're not doing SHIT here except bickering like a little bitch. Stand up and DO something TROLL.

 

[Blue Dot]

If average, aka "median", incomed people were not buying medicine there wouldnt be "more dispensaries than starbucks".

No, "average" would mean taking into account all the illegals on the lower end of the income scale as well as the Hollywood elite actors and producers on the higher end of the scale.

I don't think the average price of meds should be dictated by illegals and people like Brad Pitt and Snoop Dogg. Do you?

Thats why a median or mean is used instead of the "average" to truly reflect the middle ground.

 

[johnnyla]

No, "average" would mean taking into account all the illegals on the lower end of the income scale as well as the Hollywood elite actors and producers on the higer end of the scale.

I don't think the average price of meds should be dictated by illegals and people like Brad Pitt and Snoop Dogg. Do you?

Thats why a median or mean is used instead of the "average" to truly reflect the middle ground.

Ummm, meds don't have a price officer. that is illegal.

they cannot be bought and sold. until the courts decide this is absurd. hopefully soon.

 

[Blue Dot]

Ummm, meds don't have a price officer. that is illegal.

they cannot be bought and sold. until the courts decide this is absurd. hopefully soon.

Good Lord, you really think anybody buys that "donation" BS, like that isn't really the price of the sale.

lol, yeah right.

 

[johnnyla]

Good Lord, you really think anybody buys that "donation" BS, like that isn't really the price of the sale.

lol, yeah right.

i know it's as ridiculously assininly stupid as the "well, see, the law says you can grow it and be compensated for costs incurred but you can't sell it (collect for costs).

i just thought i would bounce in and say hello, sir. keep fighting the good fight.

i'm done banging my head against the wall. enjoy.

 

[johnnyla]

Good Lord, you really think anybody buys that "donation" BS, like that isn't really the price of the sale.

lol, yeah right.

i don't care and neither should anyone else till the courts decide. yer just bangin' yer head against the wall.

your opinions don't mean anything.

 

[Sir_Nugget]

there was a time, actually not too lonmg ago when there were not that many dispensaries in LA, I'd say about 10 years ago, there were less than a couple hundred dispnsaries throughout LA county, or even less than 100. In the recent years, people have swarmed for the easy money, I think these regulations will be ok because It will allow street dealers to grow, but the remaining 70 dispensaries will get a large profit share. I think these 70 dispensaries books need to be insanely closey monitores to comply with non-profit status

 

[Richard Gozinya]

BD, I want to know what you think is a fair price? You are very passionate about this subject but I have never seen you quote a price. Also how much do you think a dispensary owner should make?

 

[medfinder]

Los Angeles ordering hundreds of dispensaries to close

Los Angeles ordering hundreds of dispensaries to close .

But, ASA has picked up the Torch!




Medical Marijuana Group Sues L.A. Over Dispensary Ordinance!



LOS ANGELES --- The country's largest medical marijuana advocacy organization, Americans for Safe Access, filed a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles today, claiming that certain provisions in a recently adopted regulatory ordinance would shut down virtually all dispensaries in the city.
The local medical marijuana law passed by the City Council and signed by Mayor Villaraigosa on February 3rd requires dispensaries to find a new location within 7 days after the ordinance takes effect. In order to comply with the ordinance, dispensaries must be located at least 1,000 feet from schools, parks, libraries, churches and other so-called "sensitive uses," and cannot abut or be across the street from any residence, which excludes almost all commercial areas in the city.

"The dispensary ordinance passed by the Los Angeles City Council might have been reasonable, if not for some onerous provisions," said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford, who filed the lawsuit today. "The requirement to find a new location within 7 days is completely unreasonable and undermines the due process of otherwise legal medical marijuana dispensaries." Despite spending more than two years to develop regulations, the Los Angeles City Council passed an ordinance without maps to show where dispensaries could locate in order to comply with the law.

Among other restrictive provisions, the Los Angeles regulations require that dispensaries "notify the City Clerk within one week after the effective date of this ordinance of their intention to register...at an identified location." The lawsuit's plaintiffs, Venice Beach Care Center and PureLife Alternative Wellness Center, two dispensaries that have operated in Los Angeles since before the city's moratorium, call the 7-day requirement to find a new site unnecessarily prohibitive. Plaintiffs further argue that without the assistance of maps such a requirement is inconceivable.

"We want to work with the city to comply with its regulations, but such unreasonable requirements make compliance impossible," said plaintiff Yamileth Bolanos of PureLife Alternative Wellness Center. "We are more than willing to negotiate a compromise that would cut short costly litigation." The plaintiffs understand that the City of Los Angeles is facing a budget shortfall of more than $200 million and want to strike a fair balance between the concerns of elected officials and the needs of thousands of area patients that rely on local dispensaries. Given the city's economic crisis, many also question the rationale of expensive enforcement action recently taken by the Los Angeles City Attorney.

Over the past few years, more than 40 California localities have adopted ordinances regulating dispensaries. According to advocates, the Los Angeles regulatory ordinance is one of the most recent and most restrictive in the state. Advocates claim that certain provisions in the local law threaten to shut down all of the city's dispensaries and amount to a de facto ban. "The whole point of the moratorium was to study the impact of restrictions like these," said ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes. "Unfortunately, a sufficient assessment never happened." The Planning Department was unable to provide residential buffer zone maps prior to the passage of the ordinance and, according to city staff, may never be able to produce them.

Both plaintiff dispensaries have operated since 2006 without any negative incidents, criminal or otherwise, and have established good relations with neighbors. A recent study commissioned by Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck, comparing the number of crimes in 2009 at the city's banks and medical marijuana dispensaries, found that 71 robberies had occurred at the more than 350 banks in the city, compared to 47 robberies at the more than 500 medical marijuana facilities. Chief Beck observed that, "banks are more likely to get robbed than medical marijuana dispensaries," and that the claim that dispensaries attract crime "doesn't really bear out."


Cons?


The people that passed sb 215/420 of california that passed this law will end up paying the litigation of this expensive law suit.


3400 state attourneys on the state payroll ready to jump in this.


Meanwhile Jerry "OAKSTERDAM" Brown is going to run for Governer of California.


Will This be the EPIC year that Cannabis will become Legal?


Or? will cannabis fall prey to patent right big pharma?

 

[Aeroguerilla]

those dispensary license are going to be like gold.

 

[bterzz]

Toohigh, good man! I cant believe I +rep'd BlueDot for the FIRST time EVER beecause I thought he quoted you saying "i dont give 2 shits abut people with illness at the end of the day"

but apparently I read it wrong!

Good for you on the "Nah man, I wanted everyone who questioned my ideals to understand that I am a true med patient and don't give a shit (or 2 lol) about who gets them, or whether they have to lie or not. if it makles you legal to puff, I'm all for it"


Peace!

 

[Cinderella99]

"...Thats why a median or mean is used instead of the "average" to truly reflect the middle ground..."

BlueDot, I appreciate the discussion...You keep repeating this mantra of taking into account median and mean income to determine this blanket notion of affordability...C'mon, man. You'd be better served to focus your attention on the profit margin of these dispensaries using hard proof (ie: receipts, accounting ledgers etc) of business costs and then focus on ROI to isolate profit margin. Determine acceptable profit margin (if there is one) derived in relation to the dispensaries cost of doing business.

Using a government statistic to determine affordability is flawed in numerous ways-- first of all gov't stats are already suspect-- look at the way they calculate unemployment, CPI, etc...It's skewed. Second of all, you have the very troubling question of "what percentage of the median income should be deemed acceptable to spend to call medicine affordable?" What percentage of one's income is that life saving/ game changing drug worth? Should the folks that are sicker/ use more or the folks that have less monthly housing expenses/bills have to spend a greater percentage of their income relative to the median income? Should the folks that are identified by gov't doctors as having viable alternatives for treating their ailments by taking big pharma drugs be expected to pay more for their choice of natural medicine? Won't work, no way.

If the gov't "dictates", from the top down, to the market what the price "should" be based on gov't stats, you run some great risks -- including wiping out production, encouraging production of some plentiful but ditch weedish medicine or tipping the scales to large, Wallymartish pharma companies that can reach economies of scale while kicking mom and pops to the curb (you may have patients tokin on some hastily grown, poorly cured/stored big bud or some sh*t -- a fate, for some, worse than death lol) In short, when you remove the freemarket from determining price and you dictate "affordability" with a one-price-fits-all, you are presented with different and greater challenges. A better alternative could be to have subsidies based on necessity and folks' ability to pay-- good luck finding an insurance company to do that though or waiting for the gov't to pass legislation enabling this.

Dude, for a capitalist, you sure are sounding a lot like a socialist

 

[Blue Dot]

BD, I want to know what you think is a fair price? You are very passionate about this subject but I have never seen you quote a price. Also how much do you think a dispensary owner should make?

$30/ 1/8th for Top Shelf.

A D owner isn't allowed to make a profit so whatever it costs to run his biz is what he should be allowed to recover.

That doesn't mean a $100,000 or $200,000/yr salrary for him/her either.

basically whatever it costs him/her, ie. he doesn't NEED a Ferrari to drive to work as a company car when a toyota would be sufficient, etc.

 

[B. Friendly]

fuck even vegas and atlanta got gambling. michigan or CALI should get mj don't you think. lol

 

[vta]

That doesn't mean a $100,000 or $200,000/yr salrary for him/her either.

LMAO....100k a year in Cali is too much??????? Get real.

btw...who are you to say what people should and should not make?

 

[kmk420kali]

$30/ 1/8th for Top Shelf.

A D owner isn't allowed to make a profit so whatever it costs to run his biz is what he should be allowed to recover.

That doesn't mean a $100,000 or $200,000/yr salrary for him/her either.

basically whatever it costs him/her, ie. he doesn't NEED a Ferrari to drive to work as a company car when a toyota would be sufficient, etc.

Yup...that is how it starts!!

 

[ghostly]

no chronic in cali?

no chronic in cali?

I just got home from Cali., where i attended my Nana's funeral.

While in the Claremont/Onatario area I went on a fact finding mission. Being medical marijane patients in Washington state we wanted to see what access we could get in the land of 215.

After we called several surrounding Disp., we were refered to a clinic. Within 15 minutes we had an appointment. A short drive and we are here...After filling out some paper work, the clinic operator gave us 'instruction' and we were sent into an office that had a Skype internet link to a doctor in LA. The doctor asked about our medical history and the usual questions and we were out of there. In Washington it cost 200 per year @ THCF (the only real docs up here that advertise and have a huge market share) and you must present a lot of paper work. We didnt even have Cali licenses, (which can be an issue-thats another story) we just said we had moved down and hadnt yet got our ID yet, good enuff!

So now to score meds... the first place we grabbed snowcap (because i have been working with SC for years and know it well), 707 headband (cuz all the hype), and platnum sour grapes (just for kicks) and they gave a free joint. the joint was stemmy, so i threw it out the window. the PSG was pure junk. the SC was unrecognizable. the 707 actually smelled a bit like the last nycd i grew and wasnt terrible... but none the less, it was that NorCal outdoor junk that doesnt even rival the candian exports of the pre 9/11 era.
the second stop, the place which refered us to the clinic, denied us entry cuz we didnt have cali license. but they did send us to another disp. that supposedly had the good shit.
third times a charm? sort of..
this place had exceptional hash and some killer suckers and edibles. since i just grew GC i tried there OrangeCrack and again the headband. the smoke had a better smell, as it was at least identifiable, however, no indoor to speak of.

the prices were outrageous! I know Im spoiled, i know the market commands higher priced in Cali but $40 for 3g of mediocre or even poor outdoor... hahaha

i wish i could report otherwise, but the weed at the dispensaries we saw... a total joke!
i appreciate the easy access and cheap cost of getting licensed. only $70

 

[toohighmf]

No, "average" would mean taking into account all the illegals on the lower end of the income scale as well as the Hollywood elite actors and producers on the higher end of the scale.

I don't think the average price of meds should be dictated by illegals and people like Brad Pitt and Snoop Dogg. Do you?

Thats why a median or mean is used instead of the "average" to truly reflect the middle ground.

As I provided medicine for Jlo/asslick, Snoop, Don the magic Juan, homeboy who played Anakin Skywalker, Aceylone, David Ruffin jr. and countless others. Hollywood "patients" want to pay top dollar as they equate price with quality. Ever been offered $8400 a #? I have. When they find what their looking for, they buy it no matter what the cost, That i'm not even dictating.. they are.
Why not "recommend" a higher price for higher quality medicine that yields half of what decent meds can, but are far superior in potency, flavor, Bouquet, that was grown extremely well? Why should I get only $500 more for shit that yields half as much and don't even meet the standards of Cannasseur's who know how evaluate medicine. how many of these punks behind the counter at collectives who are "buyers" know what the fuck their talking about?

 

[vta]

Here is something for BD to rub one off to
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Existing Laws on Pot Must Be Enforced

By Carmen Trutanich
Source: Los Angeles Daily News

medical Los Angeles, CA -- In response to civil lawsuits filed against shops illegally selling and distributing marijuana in Los Angeles, the advocacy group Americans for Safe Access recently claimed that the City Attorney's Office was misreading California law and should dismiss these actions.

I respectfully disagree. These lawsuits are based upon the plain language, spirit and intention of these public health and safety laws. More importantly, these actions do not prevent or interfere in any way with a patient's right to obtain medical marijuana from lawful collectives or other means allowed under existing law.

In 1997, the voters passed Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, which allows qualified patients and their primary caregivers to possess and cultivate marijuana for medical use. In 1997, the sale of marijuana was a felony crime under both California and federal law, and remains so today. Proposition 215 was designed to ensure that patients suffering from serious illnesses could use marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. The proposition, however, did not allow for the sale of marijuana, merely its possession and cultivation.

In fact, then-San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan wrote in a ballot statement supporting Proposition 215 that the proposition "only allows marijuana to be grown for a patient's personal use. Police officers can still arrest someone who grows too much, or tries to sell it."

A court analyzing Proposition 215 in 1997 called its language a "delicate tightrope designed to induce voter approval." The court further noted in People v. Trippet that any suggestion that Proposition 215 acted as a sort of "open sesame" allowing for the sale of marijuana would mean that its drafters "were trying to put one over on the voters."

Following the passage of Proposition215, shop owners cleverly characterized themselves as "primary caregivers" in an attempt to justify sales of marijuana. The court in another ruling, however, put an end to this obvious charade.

The court summed up the shop owners' rejected argument as follows: "A person purchasing marijuana for medicinal purposes cannot simply designate ... drug dealers on street corners and sales centers such as the Cannabis Buyers' Club as the patient's `primary caregiver."'

Moreover, in 2008, the California Supreme Court in People v. Mentch made clear that a "primary caregiver" was a person who consistently took care of the housing, health or safety of a patient, not a person who merely supplied the patient with marijuana. These are the words and findings of the California courts, not the City Attorney's Office.

In 2003, the Legislature passed the Medical Marijuana Program Act, or MMPA, which established an identification system for medical marijuana users. The MMPA also provides that qualified patients and their primary caregivers, who "associate within the state of California in order to collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions."

This provision was specifically designed to protect patients and their caregivers who legitimately pool their resources to cultivate marijuana for their medical use. Such language was obviously not designed to serve as an "open sesame" for profiteers raking in astronomical amounts of money by selling marijuana to the general public, including teenagers, most of whom are merely purchasing the marijuana for recreational use.

California law clearly allows qualified patients and their primary caregivers to obtain medical marijuana. The law, however, does not allow collectives or so-called "dispensaries" to sell marijuana or otherwise unlawfully operate a highly profitable commercial enterprise under the cynical guise of purportedly providing medicine to patients.

Such a sham and miscarriage of the law perpetrated by illegal shops must stop so that we can protect patients. Patients oftentimes unknowingly purchase marijuana that was smuggled into the country or grown in illegal groves causing wildlife and habitat destruction in our national parks and forests, or - worse - is contaminated with pesticides and other impurities.

The position of city attorney is mandated by the U.S. and California constitutions, as well as the City Charter, to enforce the law. The law clearly prohibits the sale of marijuana and the distribution of contaminated consumer drugs and medicines.

If pharmacies were found to be distributing aspirin contaminated with pesticides, how long would any bottles of that particular brand remain on store shelves? Not very long because the public would demand that the law be immediately enforced. Why should medical marijuana be subjected to any less of a consumer safety standard - especially in light of the advocates' argument that it is a medicine?

If the voters or the Legislature of California believe that the laws pertaining to marijuana and consumer protection should be amended, then they must act to effect those changes.

In the interim, the City Attorney's Office will continue to support and enforce existing laws that provide patients and their caregivers the right to obtain safe and reliable access to medical marijuana, including from legitimate collectives, while at the same time, protecting these patients and other residents from unscrupulous profiteers, traffickers and contaminated medicines.

Note: Carmen A. Trutanich is the city attorney of Los Angeles.

 

[Richard Gozinya]

BD, thanks for getting back, 30.00 1/8th is where I see it as a reasonable cost. I think all the years of 60 for top shelf people would be just fine paying 30. But i think the owner (currently) is taking a huge risk and 100K is nothing for that kind of risk.

Do you have the same heartburn with other businesses that they pay the CEO a huge salary to sell a product? I can assure you that the CEO of any Pharma is making 20 mil easy if not much higher. And they actually kill people with there product, how about the CEO of Budweiser, this guy has a hand in what 300,000 alcohol deaths every year and how many destroyed families we wont know. A guy running a disp can go to jail pretty much at anytime the local POPO sees fit. Why take all that risk for 100K. But I get your point and I think you care about people so good on you.