Ron Strider
Well-Known Member
Los Angeles is a leading light in the new era of legalized marijuana that resists the feds and provides money, jobs and happiness to our communities.
On June 8, the city issued its Draft Commercial Cannabis Activity Requirements, which propose who will be allowed to grow, distribute and sell marijuana under a new licensing system. The city seeks feedback before deciding how to move forward. There is a lot of good in these proposed regulations, but they could be improved to help producers and consumers.
As we roll out the new system, we want to ensure that the most talented and creative entrepreneurs can take part, and that good people are not unfairly shut out of the system.
Los Angeles should be open-minded about the businesses allowed to operate. For example, all would win if the law allowed for more entertainment and social events incorporating marijuana, which are essentially banned under the proposed regulations. Relatedly, there is no credible reason for the distance requirements that prohibit dispensaries from being too close to one another.
Oakland's Oaksterdam district has recently had a cultural renaissance with booming restaurants, stores and coffee shops fueled in large part by the cannabis economy. Marijuana can help create organic, walkable districts with thriving ancillary businesses.
But there is a larger problem involving who will be allowed to participate. The draft regulations will prohibit many responsible operators with track records of selling medical marijuana ethically and in substantial compliance with state law.
That is because many people throughout Los Angeles, who have followed state laws allowing marijuana sales within medical marijuana collectives, have nevertheless been charged with strict liability misdemeanor violations of Proposition D, the 2013 city ballot initiative that regulated medical marijuana businesses.
This law is a confusing jumble of regulations that has allowed Angelenos to be convicted of crimes and imprisoned for up to six months even when they had no intent to violate the law and reasonably believed they were selling marijuana legally.
Most of the time, operators and landlords have been punished by agreeing to terms of diversion or probation where they cannot be in the marijuana business for the next 18 months to three years.
Over the years, Los Angeles has had varying marijuana regulations that have always been a mess, including a period when the city allowed unlimited dispensaries as long as they filed a form called a "hardship exemption," and a lottery system that was disbanded after courts found it illegal.
Currently, under Prop. D, the city does not give out any licenses to operate marijuana dispensaries, but instead criminalizes all medical marijuana businesses and then provides "limited immunity" to those dispensaries that meet each of 15 separate requirements (labeled A through O), including filing particular documents at specific places and times over the past 10 years, remaining open only during particular hours, and continuously updating Live Scan background checks for managers of the collectives.
The city previously published a list of those dispensaries it believed met these requirements, but then issued a statement suggesting its list was inaccurate and should not be relied upon, as the list had merely been "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."
Because the city issues no permits or list of which dispensaries comply with Prop. D, and that initiative itself is so convoluted, there has been substantial confusion about its implementation and enforcement. Many have bought and sold documents, real estate and businesses purporting to reflect compliance with Prop. D only to later learn that there was an unknown violation of one of the many legal requirements -– or fraud or negligence by one of the parties – that caused the dispensary to be in violation of Prop. D.
With the goal of reducing the number of dispensaries operating in Los Angeles, the city has filed misdemeanor cases against many people and entities that have had various technical violations of the 15 requirements to receive limited immunity. Courts have held that Prop. D is a strict liability crime, meaning that people may be convicted of misdemeanors and placed in jail for violating Prop. D even when they had no criminal intent.
But as federal prosecutors concluded last year in their decision to not prosecute Hillary Clinton for her private email server, it would be unfair to punish someone for criminal violations when there is no criminal intent, even if the person had been "extremely careless."
Discriminating against responsible operators with Prop. D convictions also goes against the core principles of Measure M, which not only legalizes cannabis but aims to right some of the wrongs of our earlier marijuana policies and specifically helps people who have been stigmatized for criminal drug convictions involving no victim or intent to injure or defraud.
The new proposed regulations make clear that those dispensaries "operating in substantial [not necessarily strict] compliance with the limited immunity and tax provisions of Proposition D" may continue to operate and will get priority in processing their applications. And the regulations also state that the city will have a "social equity program" by which it will give priority in issuing licenses "based on a social equity analysis aimed at promoting equitable ownership and employment opportunities in the cannabis industry in order to decrease disparities in life outcomes for marginalized communities and to address the disproportionate impacts of the war on drugs in those communities."
The most effective way for the city to meet this goal would be to give a preference in issuing licenses to all non-violent individuals who have been saddled with drug convictions despite the lack of victims, e.g., people convicted of violating Prop. D. Instead, the city is attempting to further punish those who have directly suffered from those "disproportionate impacts of the war on drugs" by becoming criminals convicted of violating Prop. D.
The City Attorney's Office should agree to alter anyone's probation terms if that person is found to be an otherwise eligible applicant for a permit or licensed marijuana activity.
Also, the Los Angeles regulations should allow those with Prop. D violations to not be discriminated against for those violations and in fact to allow a certain percentage of the permitted locations be those very people who have been prosecuted by the City Attorney's Office.
Fairness promotes respect for the law and a harmonious society from which everyone benefits. As we enter the brave new world of an open marijuana economy, we should give everyone a fair shake at participation. Especially peaceful people who have already shown that they can run a successful dispensary following state and tax laws but unfairly became victims of the war on drugs.
The city could improve its regulations, and correct past injustices, by allowing those with prior Prop. D convictions to participate in the new permit system and play a part in the green economy.
News Moderator: Ron Strider 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: How L.A. can make its marijuana rules more fair (and more fun): Guest commentary
Author: Allison B. Margolin and J. Raza Lawrence
Contact: How to contact the Los Angeles Daily News
Photo Credit: Andrew Selsky
Website: Los Angeles Daily News: Breaking News, Sports, Entertainment
On June 8, the city issued its Draft Commercial Cannabis Activity Requirements, which propose who will be allowed to grow, distribute and sell marijuana under a new licensing system. The city seeks feedback before deciding how to move forward. There is a lot of good in these proposed regulations, but they could be improved to help producers and consumers.
As we roll out the new system, we want to ensure that the most talented and creative entrepreneurs can take part, and that good people are not unfairly shut out of the system.
Los Angeles should be open-minded about the businesses allowed to operate. For example, all would win if the law allowed for more entertainment and social events incorporating marijuana, which are essentially banned under the proposed regulations. Relatedly, there is no credible reason for the distance requirements that prohibit dispensaries from being too close to one another.
Oakland's Oaksterdam district has recently had a cultural renaissance with booming restaurants, stores and coffee shops fueled in large part by the cannabis economy. Marijuana can help create organic, walkable districts with thriving ancillary businesses.
But there is a larger problem involving who will be allowed to participate. The draft regulations will prohibit many responsible operators with track records of selling medical marijuana ethically and in substantial compliance with state law.
That is because many people throughout Los Angeles, who have followed state laws allowing marijuana sales within medical marijuana collectives, have nevertheless been charged with strict liability misdemeanor violations of Proposition D, the 2013 city ballot initiative that regulated medical marijuana businesses.
This law is a confusing jumble of regulations that has allowed Angelenos to be convicted of crimes and imprisoned for up to six months even when they had no intent to violate the law and reasonably believed they were selling marijuana legally.
Most of the time, operators and landlords have been punished by agreeing to terms of diversion or probation where they cannot be in the marijuana business for the next 18 months to three years.
Over the years, Los Angeles has had varying marijuana regulations that have always been a mess, including a period when the city allowed unlimited dispensaries as long as they filed a form called a "hardship exemption," and a lottery system that was disbanded after courts found it illegal.
Currently, under Prop. D, the city does not give out any licenses to operate marijuana dispensaries, but instead criminalizes all medical marijuana businesses and then provides "limited immunity" to those dispensaries that meet each of 15 separate requirements (labeled A through O), including filing particular documents at specific places and times over the past 10 years, remaining open only during particular hours, and continuously updating Live Scan background checks for managers of the collectives.
The city previously published a list of those dispensaries it believed met these requirements, but then issued a statement suggesting its list was inaccurate and should not be relied upon, as the list had merely been "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."
Because the city issues no permits or list of which dispensaries comply with Prop. D, and that initiative itself is so convoluted, there has been substantial confusion about its implementation and enforcement. Many have bought and sold documents, real estate and businesses purporting to reflect compliance with Prop. D only to later learn that there was an unknown violation of one of the many legal requirements -– or fraud or negligence by one of the parties – that caused the dispensary to be in violation of Prop. D.
With the goal of reducing the number of dispensaries operating in Los Angeles, the city has filed misdemeanor cases against many people and entities that have had various technical violations of the 15 requirements to receive limited immunity. Courts have held that Prop. D is a strict liability crime, meaning that people may be convicted of misdemeanors and placed in jail for violating Prop. D even when they had no criminal intent.
But as federal prosecutors concluded last year in their decision to not prosecute Hillary Clinton for her private email server, it would be unfair to punish someone for criminal violations when there is no criminal intent, even if the person had been "extremely careless."
Discriminating against responsible operators with Prop. D convictions also goes against the core principles of Measure M, which not only legalizes cannabis but aims to right some of the wrongs of our earlier marijuana policies and specifically helps people who have been stigmatized for criminal drug convictions involving no victim or intent to injure or defraud.
The new proposed regulations make clear that those dispensaries "operating in substantial [not necessarily strict] compliance with the limited immunity and tax provisions of Proposition D" may continue to operate and will get priority in processing their applications. And the regulations also state that the city will have a "social equity program" by which it will give priority in issuing licenses "based on a social equity analysis aimed at promoting equitable ownership and employment opportunities in the cannabis industry in order to decrease disparities in life outcomes for marginalized communities and to address the disproportionate impacts of the war on drugs in those communities."
The most effective way for the city to meet this goal would be to give a preference in issuing licenses to all non-violent individuals who have been saddled with drug convictions despite the lack of victims, e.g., people convicted of violating Prop. D. Instead, the city is attempting to further punish those who have directly suffered from those "disproportionate impacts of the war on drugs" by becoming criminals convicted of violating Prop. D.
The City Attorney's Office should agree to alter anyone's probation terms if that person is found to be an otherwise eligible applicant for a permit or licensed marijuana activity.
Also, the Los Angeles regulations should allow those with Prop. D violations to not be discriminated against for those violations and in fact to allow a certain percentage of the permitted locations be those very people who have been prosecuted by the City Attorney's Office.
Fairness promotes respect for the law and a harmonious society from which everyone benefits. As we enter the brave new world of an open marijuana economy, we should give everyone a fair shake at participation. Especially peaceful people who have already shown that they can run a successful dispensary following state and tax laws but unfairly became victims of the war on drugs.
The city could improve its regulations, and correct past injustices, by allowing those with prior Prop. D convictions to participate in the new permit system and play a part in the green economy.
News Moderator: Ron Strider 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: How L.A. can make its marijuana rules more fair (and more fun): Guest commentary
Author: Allison B. Margolin and J. Raza Lawrence
Contact: How to contact the Los Angeles Daily News
Photo Credit: Andrew Selsky
Website: Los Angeles Daily News: Breaking News, Sports, Entertainment
