9:00am | During its February 2nd session, the City Council is scheduled to review the City Attorney’s latest revision of the proposed Medical Marijuana Ordinance.

I encourage our readers to review the latest revision by clicking here and downloading the document entitled 020210-ORD-30-ORD REDLINED.pdf. Of additional interest is a map of locations where properly licensed Collectives can be located if this latest version of the ordinance is adopted. You can view that map by clicking here and downloading the last attachment file, entitled 020210-ORD-30-MAP.pdf.

Here are some specific proposed revisions and my thoughts about them:

The permit required would be re-named from an Administrative Use Permit to a Medical Marijuana Collective Permit. I’m still not particularly concerned about what we call the license.

The definition of a Collective would be amended to include the function of distribution of Medical Marijuana to Collective members and Management members and the phrase “and Management Members” has been added throughout the ordinance. This brings the language more specifically in line with the Compassionate Usage Act and I think this is a good thing.

“Reasonable Compensation” has been added to the phrases defined in the ordinance and this is defined as: “compensation commensurate with reasonable wages and benefits paid to employees of IRS-qualified non-profit organizations who have similar job descriptions and duties, required level of education and experience, prior individual earnings history and number of hours worked. The payment of a bonus shall not be considered ‘Reasonable Compensation’”. This appears to have been added to both allow for the payment of Collective employees while preventing the opportunity for profit-taking in the guise of paying “bonuses” (which would be unlawful).

The time the City is given to hold a Permit application hearing has been doubled from 30 to 60 days. I mentioned in the previous column that I felt 30 days would not be sufficient to hold such hearings and it seems the City Attorney thought so too.

The proposed buffer zones have been changed to 1500’ from any High School and 500’ from any kindergarten and elementary or middle school. A buffer from state-licensed child care facilities, playgrounds and youth centers has been removed but the 1000’ buffer from any other Collective remains in place. Fair enough. I suppose it could be argued that there’s a compelling interest to keep Collectives further from High Schools and, thus, High School-aged students but, in truth, they are more likely to walk by a Collective when they aren’t at school than when they are. But if this helps the School District and parents of those students feel more comfortable, that’s fine too.

Additional signage inside the Collective must announce that the Collective is “permitted in accordance with the laws of the City of Long Beach” and that “the sale of marijuana and the diversion of marijuana for non-medical purposes are violations of State law”. This sounds reasonable to me.

The possession of a valid Los Angeles County Sanitation District Industrial Waste Permit would no longer be required and the requirement that the Collective meet all federal laws has been stricken. The former doesn’t seem significant to me and the latter is absolutely necessary because existing federal law prohibits the cultivation, possession or diversion of marijuana at all. No licensed Collective in Long Beach will be in compliance with federal law unless and until those laws are changed.

Added is the warning that “No Collective shall operate for profit” but that cash in-kind contributions, reimbursements and reasonable compensation are allowed so long as they remain in strict compliance with State law. All such cash in-kind amounts and items must be documented in compliance with the Maintenance of Records section of the ordinance. This is equally important and brings the language more specifically in line with the CUA.

A Permit becomes null and void if the Collective disbands altogether or relocates to a different property. The latter is necessary because a new property would be in a new location that would, itself, require inspection for compliance with the Ordinance. Also added are: descriptions of what constitutes a change in location; a statement that the only lawful activity at a Licensed Collective is that which is expressly indicated on the application (this to prevent applicants from operating a Collective under the guise of operating any other sort of business) and; a prohibition against Permit holders from renting the property top anyone else or allowing any other use other than place-to-place sales of soil and nutrients to Members and Management Members.

I’m a bit confused about language that was stricken from the Prohibited Activity section. Subsection “N” used to prohibit inhaling, smoking, eating or ingesting medical marijuana in public view on the property, parking areas or other areas restricted by the State Health and Safety Code, but this revision strikes the phrase “in public view”. This seems to now mean that ingesting the substance in any way will now be prohibited anywhere on the property rather than only in those areas open to public view. I’m not entirely sure why this change was made since the requirements for sufficient odor absorbing ventilation and exhaust systems remain in place. It’s possible that this has to do with recognizing that the Collective can now be considered a workplace for some and smoking is prohibited in all workplaces in Long Beach that are not otherwise exempted.

The Ordinance would take effect 120 days from passage and adoption (up from the original 90 days) and applications for Medical Marijuana Collective Permits will be accepted for 120 prior to the Ordinance effective date (also up from the original 90 days).

The final addition is a requirement that the Council shall review the Ordinance and modify it if/as necessary after one year.

Overall I think the City Attorney’s Office has done an admirable job of considering and attempting to reasonably accommodate as many of the concerns brought forth by the Council and members of the public as would be lawful under the CUA and MMPA and other applicable codified and case laws.

Given the limits within which the City must work, I think this proposed Ordinance represents our best effort to date to accommodate the needs of legitimate medical marijuana patients and balance them with the reasonable concerns of the many other stakeholders in the community that are affected by the existence of Medical Marijuana Collectives.

That said, I maintain that the best and longest-term solution for this challenge in our society is to compel our Federal lawmakers to move marijuana from the Schedule 1 list of drugs so that it can be lawfully “prescribed” by licensed medical professionals, rather than merely “recommended”. Until we accomplish that change, any one of our locally licensed Medical Marijuana Collectives remains subject to raids by federal law enforcement agents. No local law (nor ill-advised Presidential policy) can fully immunize our Collectives from that risk. Only a change in the applicable federal laws can do so.

I very much welcome your questions and comments!