Medical Marijuana Regulation
City of Los Angeles
Initiative Ordinance - Majority Approval Required
Index of all Measures
|Information shown below: Summary | Fiscal Impact | Impartial Analysis | Arguments ||
Shall an ordinance regulating associations of six or more qualified patients and/or primary caregivers who gather to cultivate, distribute or engage in other activities related to marijuana for medical purposes (MMCs) by: (1) prohibiting MMCs but providing limited immunity for MMCs that operated since September 2007, timely registered with the City, generally have not ceased operations for 90 days, pass annual background checks, are separated from residential zones, maintain certain distances from schools, parks, child care facilities and other designated places, and satisfy other requirements; (2) establishing operational standards enforceable as infractions; and (3) exempting associations of five or fewer patients/caregivers who process or cultivate medical marijuana on-site for MMCs, their patients or themselves, and other exemptions; be adopted?
Shall the City of Los Angeles limit the number of "medical marijuana collectives" of six or more patients/caregivers who gather in a location to those that have operated since September 2007, previously registered with the City, and meet other requirements?
This measure exempts from City regulation associations of five (5) or fewer patients and/or caregivers that cultivate medical marijuana on-site for themselves, their patients, or for a "medical marijuana collective." It also exempts licensed health care facilities and locations/vehicles during the time they are used to deliver medical marijuana to a qualified patient.
A YES VOTE MEANS:
A NO VOTE MEANS:
The impact of this measure cannot be quantified. The City received $2.5 million in business taxes from MMCs in 2012. Any revenue loss from the decrease in MMCs may be offset by the possible shift of business to the remaining MMCs. MMC business tax revenue is deposited in the General Fund and is used to fund police, fire, street services, parks, libraries and other general purposes throughout the City. Additional public safety and enforcement expenditures resulting from exemptions for associations of five or less patients/caregivers and health care facilities are also unknown.
This initiative would regulate "medical marijuana collectives" by banning such businesses , but then grant immunity from the ban to those collectives that operated since September 2007, registered in accordance with two (2) of the City's earlier medical marijuana registration laws, generally have not ceased operations for 90 days, pass annual background checks, are separated from residential zones, and maintain a 1,000-foot distance from schools and a 600-foot distance from parks, child care facilities and other designated places. It defines a "medical marijuana collective" as: (1) an association of six (6) or more qualified patients, persons with identification cards, or primary caregivers, who gather in a location collectively or cooperatively to cultivate, process, distribute, deliver or give away marijuana to its members for medical purposes, in accordance with State law; and (2) any vehicle or other mode of transportation, stationary or mobile, which is used to transport, distribute, deliver, or give away marijuana to qualified patients, persons with an identification card, or primary caregivers.
The initiative would establish additional operational standards that would be enforceable as infractions if violated. The measure does not require a distance separation between collectives.
This initiative would exempt from City regulation any association of five (5) or fewer qualified patients, persons with an identification card, and/or primary caregivers who process or collectively or cooperatively cultivate marijuana on-site for their own personal medical use, for a medical marijuana collective, or for their qualified patients. The measure would also exempt licensed health care facilities and both locations and vehicles during the time they are used to deliver medical marijuana to a qualified patient.
If any or all of the three competing measures are approved by a majority of voters, only the one ballot measure that receives the most votes will become effective.
|Arguments For Ordinance E||Arguments Against Ordinance E|
|The official proponents of Initiative Ordinance E have concluded that the Los Angeles City
Council-backed Proposition D supports the principles set forth in our Initiative, and there is
no longer a need for the voters to support Initiative Ordinance E. Therefore, WE HAVE
SUSPENDED OUR CAMPAIGN AND NO LONGER SEEK A YES VOTE ON INITIATIVE
GARY CARVER Proponent, COMMITTEE TO PROTECT PATIENTS AND NEIGHBORHOODS
|Vote NO on Initiative Ordinance E
This initiative will increase the proliferation of illegal pot shops across Los Angeles.
Nothing in E will overturn Federal law which prohibits the sale or possession of marijuana for any reason.This initiative will only protect the untold millions of illegal cash profits made by illegal pot shop owners at the expense of our communities.
Vote NO on Initiative Ordinance E. It ties the hands of neighborhoods under siege by illegal pot shops.There are more illegal pot shops than ice cream stores in Los Angeles. The continued operation of illegal pot shops only creates the potential for increased blight, takeover robberies, and even homicides. Law enforcement needs every tool possible to keep our City safe.
Vote NO on Initiative Ordinance E. It will NOT provide additional revenue for Los Angeles.
Medicine is not subject to tax. The pot shop owners have already sued the City to prevent taxation of their illegal businesses. This initiative will just place the City in endless litigation and divert vital resources from core services.
Vote NO on Initiative Ordinance E. We all have sympathy for the seriously ill; however, this initiative does nothing to protect patients. California's 1996 Compassionate Use Act already protects patients and their caregivers from criminal prosecution.
Protect our communities from blight, illegal drug sales and violent crime. Join law enforcement and community leaders across Los Angeles and vote NO on E.
BERNARD C. PARKS, Councilmember, District 8, City of Los Angeles
MITCH ENGLANDER, Councilmember, District 12, City of Los Angeles
PAULA CRACIUM,President, Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council
EDWARD HEADINGTON, President, Granada Hills North Neighborhood Council
BETTYE BRYANT, Representative, Mid City Neighborhood Council Region 1
THEODORE THOMAS, President, Park Mesa Heights Community Council
ROBERT RUBIN, Consultant