Thursday, June 11, 2009

L.A. City Council Needs To Base Medical Marijuana Dispensary Issue on Facts, Not Propoganda Spin or Flippant, Roughshot Arrogance

PUBLIC NOTICE: Medical Marijuana dispensary owners, their staff and patients, please show up to the Los Angeles City Council meeting each and every Tuesday and Wednesday at 10:00am, and Fridays at 10:30am. The meetings are at Downtown City Hall (200 Spring Street), or you can go to Van Nuys City Hall or San Pedro City Hall, during those same times and you can speak from there. You can give public comment from those locations, too, and it is beamed into City Hall and across Channel 35 on Time Warner cable in Los Angeles.

Medical Marijuana dispensaries, also referred to as "co-ops" are under random attack of the fifteen members of Los Angeles City Council, who have made the "sign, sealed and delivered" decision that the city already has "too many" co-ops; and "people don't want this many." And it appears as though they plan on voting "no" on all hardship exemption cases before them, with over 500 waiting in the wings to be voted on.

This issue is not about whether there are not enough, the right amount, or too many medical marijuana outlets across the city, but the fact that the Los Angeles City Council (rightfully and laughingly refereed to as "City Clowncil") has ONCE AGAIN, just like with Clear Channel billboards, fucked it all up by not being responsible leaders who are running the city, but being a "reactive" council, as usual, letting things get out of their control; then having to run rough shot over the process and set the city up for hundreds of potential lawsuits, over their arrogance in the handling of the matter.

Remember, you dumb city councilmembers; you lose leverage and credibility when you allow something to happen under your watch, when you should have been addressing it all along, then you try to sweep the situation, along with legal compliance and democracy under the rug.

And what I mean, specifically, are the over 500 hardship exemption cases that you let pile up and did not review until L.A. Times did an article about the emergence of co-ops. YOU HAD TWO YEARS TO START REVIEWING THEM, now they are all piled up, and the stores are all opened up and operating and they all have patients already.

SO NOW, Since Huizar's Chief of Staff Eric S., had to be so arrogant and condescending to Zuma Dogg in his discussion of this matter, after he was nice enough to take my call; and since a few Councilmembers were a little too flippant and dismissive in their discussion of the matter;

Zuma Dogg will be presenting the argument exposing the "chicken with their heads cut off" planning and implementation strategy that the chronically and tragically wrong Los Angeles City Council operates under.

First of all, when making fun of the rudderless leaderless-ship that IS Los Angeles City Council, the first thing that must be noted, once again, in the discussion of their handling of the medical marijuana situation, is the fact that they allowed over 500 co-ops to file for a hardship exemption, and did not review a single one of them until this week -- even though it all went into effect two years ago? Because DURING THIS TIME WHEN THOSE LAZY AND SHADY LOSERS WERE NOT REVIEWING ANY OF THESE HARDSHIP EXEMPTION CASES, THE CO-OPS WERE ALLOWED TO OPEN UP AND OPERATE AND BUILD A PATIENT REGISTRY UNTIL YOU REVIEWED IT!!!

Now Zuma Dogg will agree that many of these H.E.'s (Hardship Exemptions) are bullshit and would not hold water. So let's operate under the premise that MOST of these H.E.'s are bullshit...WHY DIDN'T YOU VOTE THEM DOWN AS THEY POPPED UP (SO THE DISPENSARY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO POP UP?)

So the first thing to be noted is that L.A. City Council allowed all of these co-ops to open, by not voting on the hardship exemptions as they were applied for, which would have prevented these co-ops from being able to open or stay opened.

Secondly, what pisses me off is that now, you have a few councilmembers and their arrogant staffers pompously and condescendingly saying, "We have too many co-ops and people don't want this many."

[Sound Effect: THE BRAKES SCREETCH ON THE HUIZAR'S SHADY $250 MILLION BROADWAY DISTRICT TROLLEY ZUMA DOGG MAY RIDE ON SOME DAY IF IT IS BUILT!!!]

Excuse me you rough shot decision makers. HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE ARE TOO MANY CO-OPS ALREADY, AND HOW DO YOU KNOW "PEOPLE" DON'T WANT THIS MANY???

Let me see the results of that poll or vote of the people or petition drive? Just because you dumb councilmembers think so doesn't mean you are right and just because you hold your finger in the air and say, "Hmmm, today we have too many co-ops cause I fucking feel like saying that today, so it must be so" does not mean your decision is based on demographics or statistics in any way, shape or form.

So let me clarify: City Council says, "We have too many co-ops and people don't want this many and they are too close to park/school/church/kids. After all, Zuma Dogg, Oakland and San Fransisco doesn't have this many."

First of all, Los Angeles is more geographically spread out than those cities. So even if you had the same amount of people or same amount of patients, you would have to have more across L.A. than those cities because L.A. is much bigger and wider.

Secondly, who says THOSE CITIES have the right amount of co-ops? Maybe THEY don't have ENOUGH? Maybe there are more sick people here because the city is so much more stressful to live in. You do not base how many co-ops are needed in L.A. and in what areas by quoting statistics of other cities.

Additionally, you say, "Has enough/too many already." HOW DO YOU KNOW??? Have you opened up the census statistics and reviewed how many people with diseases and sicknesses that require medication that qualify as patients there are and in what areas of the city? The information is available. NO, you have not looked at that information when you make a blanket statement that, "We already have enough/too many."

And it is kind of the wrong side of logic to boldly and decisively proclaim we have too many, when in these economic hard times, when most sectors are folding, these operations are flourishing and opening up, SO THERE MUST NOT BE TOO MANY?? HOW COULD YOU SAY THERE ARE TOO MANY, IF THEY ARE OPENING AND STAYING IN BUSINESS???

And you simply cannot say, "Oh, there are two or three near each other." SO WHAT, there are two or three coffee shops, or fast food restaurants or liquor stores near each other. But here is why you simply cannot declare, "Can't have two near each other."

These are not like Kinko's or Subway franchises. Maybe one co-op specializes in more expensive upscale medications and the other one is the low budget locations. Maybe one specializes in all the edibles, and the other one might not have many edibles. And it's not like money that you can just print up more and more of, sometimes ONE co-op will be low on medication, so there is the other one to pick up the local slack.

AND, if you are concerned about community impact, if you close a bunch, then more people will be forced to the other locations, making it more of an "in and out" traffic situation.

But these are in commercial areas anyway: There shouldn't be a problem. It's just because it's marijuana being sold that people are declaring there are too many. People don't complain there are too many coffee shops, or clothing stores or all kinds of dumb retail nonsense there is way too much of, not to mention all the convience liquor stores that are much more of a community populator, that kids are actually allowed to walk into and mingle with the alcohol and tobacco buyers.

AND IF YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO THESE CO-OPS, BUYING MARIJUANA AND SELLING IT TO KIDS ON PLAYGROUNDS, AND THAT CRIME GOES UP IN THE AREA...when it is being sold out of discrete, secure retail locations that people walk in and out with nothing more than a small bag that could be a bag of jellybeans....

IMAGINE IF YOU SEND ALL THE MARIJUANA GROWERS AND PATIENTS RIGHT OUT INTO THE STREETS AND SIDEWALKS OF LOS ANGELES CITY!!!

Oh yeah, the parks will get quite a bit of action, once again. It will be a big networking party on the streets as the police can crack down on Venice Beach again as everyone is forced to buy their medication on the boardwalk, or parks, parking lots and sidewalks across the city. WHILE IT DOESN'T GET TAXED AND MONEY FOR PERMITS IS NOT TAKEN IN AND PEOPLE LOSE JOBS AND MORE RETAIL SPACE BECOMES VACANT AND UNLEASED. (And the coffee shops, clothing stores, food places and conscience stores can lose business of the clientele in the area.)

But Zuma Dogg, there is crime at these places. I called LAPD today, and they say the crime that they can find to report are the co-ops that get robbed. You don't close banks or jewelery stores because they are at risk of robbery. If this is an issue, Zuma Dogg HAS the solution to force compliance on that issue...because if these places are getting robbed, that means they do not have the proper security or preventative measures in the first place. (Again, ZD will consult with you and tell you how to make a location more secure if needed.) But again, you do not say, "NO" to all co-ops because of occasional robberies.

So get your facts straight, and you can start by getting some before you get arrogant, flippant and dismissive with Zuma Dogg on this important issue.

The Medical Marijuana issue is also an AIDS patient issue and a GAY issue, so you are also pissing them off with this thuggish tactics.

I was told the people who want these co-ops is just a small number of people who are in the minority and the rest of the people do not want them.

WE WILL SEE HOW SMALL A MINORITY THEY ARE, MY FRIEND.

THEY WILL BE SEEING YOU 10, 20, hopefully 30 at a time, ESPECIALLY ON FRIDAYS, ON TOP OF "DOG AND PONY SHOW PRESENTATION" FRIDAYS, MY FRIEND.

LA DAILY BLOG READER COMMENT: Anon reader said...It is amazing that once again , the L.A City Council has proved to be incompetent. How could they let these places pop up and not review hardship applications? Another thing that I don't believe was mentioned is that San Francisco and Oakland charge dispensaries THOUSANDS of dollars to open up shop. In L.A the fee is ZERO. I think in SF it is $30,000 and Oakland $8,000 or vice versa.

Just like with the billboard issue, the City has a huge potential revenue source and they don't take advantage of it...then complain they need to stop important services to people. So frustrating.

Follow by Email