Recent events promise to bolster the importance of decentralized but locally regulated medical marijuana dispensaries. U.S. Attorneys have sent letters to officials in at least ten states that have been trying to implement centrally regulated supply systems. These letters urge caution, reminding the governors and their legislatures that the federal government will “vigorously” prosecute those involved in the manufacturing and distribution of marijuana, even if they are in compliance with state law. An implication of this federal action is that small-scale privately run dispensaries, operating in the shadow of federal law, will continue to be the most viable source of medical marijuana. Our work aims to inform the debate on local approaches to regulating this market.

Download a copy of the RAND Corporation report and look for more analysis here soon.

SB 847 was born out of frustration and fear. Cities and counties in California are struggling to regulate medical cannabis in a murky legal environment, and law enforcement lobbyists keep fanning the flames of hysterical media coverage. Lawmakers were under pressure to “do something” about medical cannabis this year. SB 847 passed both houses of the state legislature with broad support – 34 to 4 in the Senate and 68 to 5 in the Assembly. Lobbyists, politicos, and activists were virtually unanimous in their position that Governor Brown would sign this popular Democratic-authored bill.

So what happened? The people spoke up! Almost 4,000 members of Americans for Safe Access (ASA) emailed the Governor in the last thirty days. We have no way to know how many more called or wrote letters. ASA, other organizations, and a vast cohort of citizen lobbyists made it very clear that people did not support SB 847. And against the odds, the Governor listened!

ASA believes in grassroots activism. Lobbyists and other spokespeople can only be effective when elected officials are hearing about this issue from their constituents. There is no faking genuine grassroots support (or opposition). That is why ASA invests a lot of time and other resources in building, training, and supporting the grassroots. Their online Activist Training Center and innovative Think Tank and Policy Shop are new tools for putting that powerful grassroots voice behind ASA’s local, state, and national campaigns.

The debate about adopting and implementing medical cannabis laws is happening all over the country. ASA calls on organizers, entrepreneurs, and captains of industry to remember the lessons of SB 847. Join me in making grassroots advocacy a part of your business plan (and encouraging our colleagues to do the same) by supporting the important work ASA does. We will all be better off for it!

“SAN DIEGO – After listening to almost two hours of public commentary, both in favor and against repealing the ordinances that attempted to regulate medicinal marijuana co-ops, the city council reluctantly voted 6 to 2 in favor of repeal.

The two repealed ordinances would have prohibited medicinal marijuana co-ops from operating in commercial zones, and within 600 ft of schools, parks, churches, day cares, and each other. Forcing San Diego County medicinal marijuana patients to travel to a few industrial zones in the city’s out skirts to obtain their medication…”

Read the entire post on Nug Magazine’s web site.

City Officials will select one hundred collectives in a lottery to determine the new Priority List. Each collective’s place on the list will determine their priority for locating in one of the thirty-five Community Plan Areas (CPA). The city’s ordinance distributes collectives proportionally among the CPA based on population. The priority order is significant, because virtually all of the city’s collectives must relocate to satisfy the stringent location requirements in the ordinance.

Out of context, the plan may seem rational, but the random selection process will do nothing to select the best candidates. The lottery also negates the distinction between those collectives that opened before the flawed moratorium in 2007 and those who opened after. Because previous versions of the law relied on this distinction, some pre-moratorium collectives have spent a lot of time and money preparing to relocate based on the old chronological Priority List. That may set the stage for a new round of lawsuits, which could further complicate and delay implementation of the ordinance.

The city would do better to abandon the current ordinance in favor of a competitive process to find the best candidates and locations to operate collectives. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process is an ideal tool, but the buzz at City Hall is that the Planning Department is reluctant to take on the workload and inevitable controversy. If that is true, is a misguided fear. Other jurisdictions have used the CUP process successfully to permit and collectives.
Malibu will replace an unpopular collective with one of two CUP applicants next week. Given the level of disclosure and due diligence required, regulators there can be confident they are getting a good collective. Other city’s also use the CUP or a similar merit-based permit process – San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, West Hollywood, Palm Springs, etc. It is a proven regulatory strategy. The City of Los Angeles would do well to look outside its borders for better solutions, but it does not seem the City Council has any enthusiasm for new ideas right now.

You can dowload the ordiannce and amendments from the City Clerks’s web page.