Medical cannabis cooperatives and collectives in Los Angeles should already be paying a “sin tax” of 5% of their gross receipts. The tax was created by Measure M, a voter initiative proposed by the City Council last year. Tax is due effective April 18, 2011. Patients associations can download forms to pay the tax from the city’s web page.

The Measure M tax is almost ten times higher than the next highest business licensing tax in the city. That new expense will almost certainly be passed along to legal patients who comprise the cooperatives and collectives in Los Angeles. Patients and providers resent the extra tax on medical cannabis, because the city’s multi-year regulatory process has yielded one of the most restrictive ordinances in the state and dozens of lawsuits. No one knows when the litigation – both from and against the city – will be resolved. Many legitimate associations are paying huge legal bills and rent on two properties – their current locations and new one that comply with the onerous location restrictions in the embattled ordinance.

Taxing medicine like cigarettes or alcohol is bad public policy. Sick and dying Angelenos should not pay a “sin tax” on medicine their doctors recommended. The city’s ordinance already requires the cooperatives and collectives to pay all of the costs of implementing the ordinance and enforcing the law. Why not just tax these legal associations like every other business in the city? City Council Members and a large majority of voters saw Measure M as quick money from presumably well-heeled “pot dealers.” Too bad legal patients will foot the bill for that misperception.

Patients at Wednesday night’s meeting complained that the staff report supporting the ban was one sided – focusing only on law enforcement claims that collective attract crime. City staff presented reports from police officers from San Diego and San Bernardino Counties, but did not include research by Americans for Safe Access (ASA) showing that regulations reduce crime and complaints.

The City Council heard emotional testimony from local patients and providers, who vowed to keep fighting for regulations in the city. There is no word on what the city intends to do with the two collectives that survived a federal crackdown on property owners renting to collectives last year.

This report is the latest evidence of growing frustration in Los Angeles neighborhoods. The Mid-Wilshire Neighborhood Council adopted a resolution this week asking the City Council to enforce the moratorium. They join the Melrose-Fairfax Neighborhood Watch, Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council, and others community groups in speaking up about medical cannabis. Many of the principals in those organizations were featured in the report.

Bad media is bad news for patients and providers in Los Angeles. Councilmembers must adopt a permanent ordinance before the moratorium expires on September 14, and we do not want them having that debate in the context of a public outcry. This report spared collectives and cooperatives the harshest criticisms – making only passing reference to marketing aimed at young people and profiteering. We can expect more critical coverage if the public outcry grows.

I sent an email to the Sacramento Mayor and City Council Members in April urging them to move quickly in adopting sensible regulations for collectives and cooperatives. Americans for Safe Access (ASA) Sacramento Coordinator Lanette Davies and other advocates have been talking with their representatives about sensible regulations, and the city’s Law and Legislation Commission is now considering language for an ordinance that will enact a temporary moratorium on new medical cannabis storefronts. Adoption of this ordinance is likely immanent. This will give the city an opportunity to write permanent regulations to regulate storefront collectives and cooperatives.

In my email, I explain that ASA research shows the benefits of local regulation:

“Some reports have suggested that storefront patients’ associations are magnets for criminal activity or other behavior that is a problem for the community, but the experience of those cities with regulations says otherwise. Crime statistics and the accounts of local officials surveyed by Americans for Safe Access indicate that crime is actually reduced by the presence of a collective; and complaints from citizens and surrounding businesses are either negligible or are significantly reduced with the implementation of local regulations. In Oakland, where collectives have been licensed since 2004, City Administrator Barbara Killey, notes that ‘The areas around the dispensaries may be some of the  safest areas of Oakland now because of the level of security, surveillance, etc…since the ordinance passed.’”

The City of Sacramento is wise to pursue regulation, and local advocates will keep working with their elected officials to be sure the city’s final ordinance is one that facilitates safe access while protecting patients and the community at large. Advocates, including the city’s new collective operators, who wish to participate in this process can attend monthly ASA meetings on the first and third Tuesday of every month at 7:00 p.m. at Crusaders Hall located at 320 Harris Avenue, Suite H, in Sacramento. Email cannacare@earthlink.net for more information.