[Editor’s Note: On Nov. 27 Gerrie Schipske made a blog post referring to some of the content of this column, which she gleaned from e-mail correspondence between Moore and Schipske Nov. 23-25. Moore submitted this column for publication on Nov. 25, but due to the Thanksgiving holiday we were not able to post it until now.]

2:35pm | A Public Records Act Request reveals that as early as June 1, roughly one month after voting in favor of allowing collectives in Long Beach, 5th District Councilmember Gerrie Schipske seemed to indicate that she felt otherwise—a feeling that might explain her part in the recent move to further restrict the City’s medical marijuana ordinance even before it fully goes into effect.

“Honestly, I don’t want any collectives,” she replied in June to a constituent who sent her an e-mail supporting collectives in her district. “I get too many complaints and as long as the drug is illegal¹, I can’t support the city allowing them.”

Although this is the entire content of her response, Schipske claims she was referring only to collectives in her district, and that she does not want them there because the 5th District is mostly residential.

Schipske also claims she has never “push[ed] for a ban” on collectives in the city, despite at a recent city council meeting floating the idea of holding a referendum election on banning collectives citywide and then asking on her recent survey whether residents supported a ballot initiative to create just such a ban (an idea respondents disfavored by more than a 2-to-1 margin).

Although Schipske has often referred to receiving “many complaints” from her constituents about collectives, consistent with the findings of an earlier Public Records Acts Request, the information available does not appear to support this claim, as between May 15 and October 15 the offices of Councilmembers Schipske and O’Donnell each received only about a dozen documented phone calls, e-mails, and letters on the subject, some of which were in favor of collectives².

Dissimilarly, the PRAR reveals that DeLong’s claim to have received a great deal of correspondence from his constituents against collectives in his district to be beyond dispute. Almost all of this correspondence concerns Herbal Solutions, which is currently located at 5752 E. 2nd St. and is one of the nine collectives³ that will be forced to close due to the new medpot restrictions approved at the November 16 city council meeting.

It is widely believed that DeLong’s willingness to support a version of the changes that includes adding a 1,000-foot buffer zone around parks but not several of the other changes he originally sought (such as similar buffer zones around daycare facilities and libraries, as well as limiting each council district to two collectives and confining marijuana cultivation to industrial zones) is because his chief motivation in bringing forward changes to the ordinance was to eliminate Herbal Solutions—and that adding a buffer zone around parks was all that was necessary to achieve that aim.

Supporting this position is a standard response that DeLong’s office sent out repeatedly to his constituents: “Councilmember DeLong is opposed to a medical marijuana dispensary at this location and we will do everything we can to restrict it from opening.”

The anti-Herbal Solutions correspondence centers around two themes: the April 19 shooting that took place at Herbal Solutions’ former location (5746 E. 2nd St.); and Herbal Solutions’ proximity to a Rite Aid, apparently a hangout for school-age children.

These themes are often brought together in the correspondence. “Do you believe in protecting the children of Long Beach from violence?” DeLong is asked in a typical e-mail. Correspondents often use the phrase “history of violence” when referring to Herbal Solutions, though no other violence has taken place at the collective. Moreover, numerous writers lay blame for the shooting on Herbal Solutions itself, though none offers any evidence supporting this position.

Much of the correspondence is dominated by misinformation and ad hominem. “Why are we in Long Beach increasing the number [of collectives]?” DeLong is asked, although since May 1 the number of collectives in Long Beach has been reduced. “Will you do anything to stop the dealing of drugs in my neighborhood?” DeLong is begged. “Naples is now the pot version of Afghanistan,” another concerned citizen states.

Interestingly, as evinced in a July 7 e-mail she sent to an anti-collective constituent, Schipske, for one, believed the matter of collectives to be closed, at least for the foreseeable future: “no the Council will not revisited it because it just passed the ordinance” [sic].

When asked about what changed between July 7 and when Schipske, DeLong, and O’Donnell submitted their proposed changes to the ordinance, Schipske explains that “[t]he City Attorney confirmed that changes could be made to the first ordinance before the permits were issued. I had not been aware that was possible when I wrote the comment to which you refer.”

However, as reported by the Gazettes newspapers on November 24, City Attorney Robert Shannon suggests that in light of the disposition of Pack et al. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles et al., the council might consider holding off on implementing any changes to the ordinance⁴.

Footnotes
¹Schipske, of course, means illegally federally, where marijuana is a Schedule I drug (i.e., illegal for all purposes). Under the Compassionate Use Act and Medical Marijuana Program, marijuana is legal in California for medicinal use, a status that has been repeatedly upheld by the courts despite the federal prohibition. See, for example, People v. Kha (2007), which found that “a primary principle of federalism […] is to allow the states to innovate in areas bearing on the health and well-being of their citizens. Indeed, ‘[o]ur federalist system, properly understood, allows California and a growing number of States [that have authorized the use of medical marijuana] to decide for themselves how to safeguard the health and welfare of their citizens.’ (Gonzales v. Raich, supra, 545 U.S. at p. 74 (dis. opn. of Thomas, J.).) The CUA and MMP are a clear manifestation of that decision-making process.”
²In fact, regarding just the question of whether her constituents favor “the existing ordinance allowing medical marijuana collectives be[ing] changed to prohibit these collectives from operating within 1,000 feet of parks, libraries and day care centers in addition to schools,” her survey found almost an even split, with 247 in favor and 245 against.
³This number according to DeLong.
⁴“The City Council could say, ‘Let’s see what the court decides,'” Gazettes writer Jonathan Van Dyke quotes Shannon as saying. For the full article, click here.