Regarding the City of Los Angeles and their Medical Marijuana Ordinance. Today, they voted to hold a lottery to select 100 collectives that will be allowed to operate in the city. The city feels a lottery selection process will satisfy Superior Court Judge Mohr's demand to create a "level playing field," for all collectives.
But here is the argument Zuma Dogg would make to Judge Mohr regarding the city's decision to use a lottery to select 100 collectives.
First of all, Zuma Dogg would argue that a lottery does not create the level playing field the judge was ordering. A level playing field would be a standard applied to all collectives used in the decision making process based on some form of merit or performance. (ie: Meeting a deadline or proving they were open on a certain date.)
A lottery is a random chance, based on an arbitrary and capricious number -- that is not based on any merit or performance of the collective. (I don't mean operating performance, but performance in meeting city deadlines.)
And what method to select the distribution throughout the city? WHAT IF ALL 100 (OR TOO MANY) DRAWN, END UP ON THE SAME SIDE (OR POCKETS) OF THE CITY? Some areas could have none...others tons. (100 divided by 15 districts? Same amount of collectives in Venice as in Granada Hills?)
Secondly, WHY the number of 100 collectives? What research and demographic information went into the decision to shave down up to 800 eligible collectives to only 100?
Zuma Dogg finds this number to be "arbitrary and capricious."
SO YOU WANT TO HAVE AN END ALL BE ALL LOTTERY -- WITH A MOST RESTRICTIVE & LIMITING NUMBER OF 100 (the MINIMUM) -- when 800 are eligible -- AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY STATISTICS OR INFORMATION TO DOCUMENT YOUR SELECTION OF 100...
ARBITRARY & CAPRICIOUS, Y'ALL!
LA Times report