Council Delays Medical Marijuana Ban

Medical marijuana collectives will not be banned this year, and the fate of the dispensaries could be determined by the Jan. 10 vote of First District Councilman Robert Garcia.
The City Council discussed at length the potential to pass a ban on all medical marijuana collectives Tuesday, but found itself in a deadlock 4-4 vote when considering the ban — Garcia was absent. Fifth District Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske, Fourth District Councilman Patrick O’Donnell, Third District Councilman Gary DeLong and Seventh District Councilman James Johnson all voted “yes” on the ban.
Early in the proceedings, Second District Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal asked that the City Council delay the vote.
“I know it took us a couple of years to get to this point,” she said. “I know (First District) Councilman Garcia was also very involved in helping us craft where we are today and has serious interest in this.”
After Lowenthal, Eighth District Councilwoman Rae Gabelich, Ninth District Councilman Steven Neal and Sixth District Councilman Dee Andrews voted “no” on the ban, the council took up a vote to delay the matter until Jan. 10. That passed 6-2 (O’Donnell and Schipske against).
The City Council enacted regulations to permit medical marijuana collectives in 2010 and has since amended that ordinance several times. This fall, an appellate court ruled in the case Pack v. City of Long Beach that the ordinance was at least partially against federal law — specifically language alluding to permits and a lottery system.
The potential ban ordinance 5.89, if approved, would repeal the original law and includes reasoning beyond the court’s ruling: “Protecting citizens from the secondary impacts and effects associated with medical marijuana and related activities, including, but not limited to, loitering, increased pedestrian and vehicular traffic, increased noise, fraud in obtaining or using medical marijuana identification cards, sales of medical marijuana to minors, drug sales, robbery, burglaries, assaults or other violent crimes.”
It also says that banning collectives would decrease demands “on police and other valuable and scarce city administrative, financial, or personnel resources in order to better protect the public.” Violation of the potential new ordinance would be a misdemeanor — fines not exceeding $1,000, jail terms of six months, or both — and it could be enforced daily.
“The decision struck down the core of the city’s ordinance and bars any permit scheme for medical marijuana,” City Attorney Robert Shannon said in his recommendation to pass the ban. “This decision effectively removes the ability of the city to effectively regulate in the interest of public health and safety.”
Police Chief Jim McDonnell also said he supported the immediate ban of collectives. Both officials said that already, there have been new collectives opening that the city does not have the ability to shut down since the court’s ruling.
“Right now we’re in a gray area,” McDonnell said. “If there is a ban, then that gives us the ability to pursue those who are selling it against the law.”
Shannon told the City Council that individual members even might be vulnerable to federal prosecution.
“It gives me concern — I don’t want to go to jail,” O’Donnell said. “Federal law trumps state law, that’s really the situation we’re faced with, right?”
Many patients, collective workers and owners tried to appeal to the City Council during public comment, asking the members for compassion on this issue. Public comment lasted for more than two hours.
“On many occasions I had to take this avenue (buying marijuana on the streets) for obvious reasons, and at least a handful of times these so-called dealers took my money, walked away and told me if I could catch them they’d give me my money back,” said Mark Lee, who is a wheelchair-bound patient. “I don’t know how my life is going to be if you take my medication away from me.”
Members of the Long Beach Association Collective told the council that it did not need to act and should instead wait for the courts to decide on the issue — either the California Supreme Court will take the case near February, or the original court will look into individually ruling on various parts of the law later next year.
“There really is no emergency … Pack states that portions of the ordinance are preempted and other portions of the ordinance are not preempted,” Attorney Richard Brizendine said.
Schipske said the council should follow the law and the advice of its attorney and enact a ban.
“I’m a little puzzled that the council would delay any kind of action on this since it was the council who directed (Shannon) to write this ordinance and bring it in front of us tonight,” she said.
When the issue comes before the council on Jan. 10, there will be no new public comment, so it will be up for discussion only behind the rail before another vote.
“To jump through this hoop (a ban) is taking back a lot of work on both sides of the fence,” Gabelich said.