.
Here, as promised, OJ medical marijuana warrior Debbie Tharp, along with Kandice Hawes of OC Norml, the author of the Medical Cannabis Restriction and Limitation Initiative which will be on Santa Ana’s November 2014 ballot, answer all the questions you readers asked them in our last article about the measure.
As a disclaimer, Debbie and Kandice write: “We are not lawyers. We are attempting to answer these questions, as citizens, to the best of ourknowledge. More questions are always welcome, and we wholeheartedly look forward to the vibrant legal discussion surrounding this initiative. It can and will be a learning process for us all. Thank you, with all ouf hearts, for your interest in our initiative. We greatly value the time you take to learn more about it and ask these important questions 🙂 “
1. How many MMJ collectives are currently in the City (approx +/-)?
There were around 45 when we started collecting, but more and more keep popping up. This is one of the incentives for the proposed ordinance.
2. Why doesn’t the proposed ordinance do anything to distribute dispensary locations throughout the city in order to prevent their patients from traveling clear across the city to obtain their medicine?
It is true that the ordinance does not provide for equal distribution, but the commercial and industrial zones where they will be allowed are not distributed equally throughout the city. Not all areas are suitable for collectives. However market forces can and will dictate distribution of the collectives that remain open once the ordinance is passed.
3. Will the collective members be limited to Santa Ana?
No, and we would like to counter with another question. Are the only patients in Orange County in Santa Ana? If there is a concern about a patient having to travel too far to obtain medicine, why should the city border be an invisible barrier if said patient lives in an adjacent city but the closest collective to them is in Santa Ana. Furthermore, why let the city lose this beneficial tax money from residents of other cities?
4. Why doesn’t the petition ensure that marijuana collectives will not be located adjacent to residential neighborhoods?
Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have placed a 600 foot barrier between collectives and residential neighborhoods during his last legislative session. We didn’t think the barrier was necessary either. Why do we feel the need to separate MMJ patients from our community? Isn’t this the kind of punitive logic that leads to the “whites only” lunch counter?
5. Will marijuana collectives allow consumption of MMJ on premise? (I see the public right of way prohibition but I don’t see anything about on premise consumption).
The collectives are subject to California’s indoor smoking ban, just like any other public building.
6. If a Dispensary has substantial counseling type services, will the revenue earned for the services be subject to the 2% City Tax? I see that definitely for the sale of MMJ (21-119(5)(b) but it is silent on other services but then says the City can’t level taxes on anything else that the dispensary does (21-119(5)(C). The concern is that the price of MMJ goes way down for those who have related counseling services provided to them.
We’ve never heard of a collective charging for services. In this case, we can only state that we believe that the collectives will not be trying to find a way around this tax. After all, they are the ones who set it. They are willing to help the city. They WANT to help the city. A happy city provides a happy and safe environment for their collective members. Also, the tax is so small…it’s $20 for every $1000 that the collective brings in. (But collectively it will add up for the city.) Can you imagine creating this huge scheme just to get out of a tax that small?
7. If a Dispensary has not complied with current SA City gross receipts taxes does 21-119(5)(C) prohibit the City from trying to collect the past taxes?
The initiative only allows the city collect taxes from the point of registration on. We have an additional question myself on this one. How can there be gross tax receipts without a traditional business license? This is one of the hurdles that a collective faces, in that it is very difficult to obtain building permits and other permits because they cannot obtain traditional business licenses. We may be wrong on this one. Perhaps someone else can chime in?
8. What if 22 MMJ Dispensaries are not willing to operate in the city? I know it sounds like a long shot, but if the IRS or Feds cracks down, it could be a reality. You don’t have to answer this one as it likely such a remote possibility…
We actually did think of this and provided for a solution. Then only those that apply will be awarded a license. After the first round has been awarded, if there are still slots left open, then six months later the registration process can begin again.
9. Why should the City Council have the ability to increase the number of dispensaries when there is already language tying it to population growth (i.e. 1 shop per 15K people)? Can this be removed from the ordinance?
We are not sure that the people would want to remove it, as leeway can be a bit more reasonable sometimes than hard absolutes. This wording gives the guidelines and is in no way intended to be deceptive. It was meant to be a floor, not a ceiling, allowing for more if needed. But keep in mind the very serious unlikelihood that the City Council would want to increase the number of collectives against the consent of the people.
10. Your ordinance does not insure that dispensaries must be located in buildings which are ADA compliant in order to accommodate their “poster child” little old lady with glaucoma who cannot climb 2 flights of stairs to obtain her medicinal marijuana.
While some collectives are at locations that are upstairs in the city with somewhat limited parking, many others are at street level and very accessible.
This next statement is Debbie’s words alone: I find the nature of this statement by Skallywag to be very condescending when he refers to patients as “poster children” who, if they legitimately needed the medicine would not be able to climb a flight of stairs. MMJ patients come from all walks of life and have many differing ailments, and being in a wheelchair is not a requirement for being a patient. In fact, this argument that patients don’t seem to need this medicine because “they don’t seem sick to me” is getting a little bit tired.
How many people have considered the fact that many of these patients look so vital and healthy simply because MEDICAL MARIJUANA WORKS! This medicine isn’t just for the sick and dying my friend. In fact, it often saves lives. For others, it treats less severe ailments without the nasty side effects that many pharmaceutical drugs bring to the table. The chronically sick and disabled person is many a person’s idea of a typical poster child. While some of the patients at the heart of this ordinance do fit that description, the healthy cancer survivor who can run a triathlon because MMJ is helping them to stay nourished, stave off nausea, fight migraine headaches, the pain and inflammation of rheumatoid arthritis, etc, is MY idea of a typical “poster child” patient. Perhaps we will agree to disagree here.
I’ll tell my husband’s story again at a different time, but those who know me know that I have personal experience with the lifesaving effects of this herb.
– Debbie Tharp.
The ordinance will not restrict the number of collectives in the City of Santa Ana. Pot shops that are operating illegally now will continue to operate illegally.
There is no consideration for the affect which a proliferation of dispensaries will have on a particular residential, or even commercial, neighborhood – as you admit that market forces (profit) will dictate the distribution of dispensaries – rather than patient need.
It is disgusting and reprehensible that you would compare restricting pot shops to a reasonable distance from residential neighborhoods to “whites only” racial discrimination.
There is no limit to the number of dispensaries in Santa Ana in the proposed ordinance. “At least 1 medical cannabis collective or cooperative per 15,000 (or fraction thereof) residents of the City .. shall be the maximum number registered unless raised by the City Council.”
The term “At least” is not limiting at all. The “formula” is bogus. I ask for the opinion of the OJB counselor on this so-called “limiting” language.
Since you propose only a limited number of dispensaries in the City, shouldn’t all of those be required to be located in buildings that are ADA compliant and are required to have handicapped parking? Isn’t that the idea of this proposed ordinance, to serve the afflicted, or is it something else?
Skally…I have to imagine that if a City Ordinance is passed with reasonable restrictions that the city will be more willing to fight to shut down those that don’t follow the rules.
I agree with you on the “at least” language…this is troubling for me. I do feel that the strict reading of the ordinance will find that there is no limitation unless someone were to read it to mean that since there is no maximum with an “at least” that it is not reasonable to have the “at least” as part of the maximum formula. Those two words I believe will be a hurdle for supporters of this ordinance….they should have simply struck it from the language. It does absolutely nothing except cause confusion and allows future fights when the 23rd dispensary wants to open up and fights the interpretation.
“The ordinance will not restrict the number of collectives in the City of Santa Ana. Pot shops that are operating illegally now will continue to operate illegally.”
I’ll try my hand at that one, not that Skallywag’s hostility will ever be assuaged.
You are just not thinking about real life. When there are 20 dispensaries operating legally, serving the public and not being harassed unpredictably by the law, it will be much easier for the cops to find and focus on the lawbreakers.
Also, there will be less demand for lawless pot shops.
Also, I imagine law-abiding dispensaries will be motivated to even help bust lawless pot shops that cut into their profits.
The current chaotic situation fosters lawlessness, which no side wants except for lawbreakers.
How many bootleg liquor stores do you see around these days?
Thank you Debbie and Kandice for the thought out responses. I see that Skallywag also just responded, but I am going to pose these questions prior to reading his post, so sorry if there is any overlap (did not want my thoughts to be influenced by his post).
2. Locations- I am not sure that close to equal distribution is as much of a concern as it is a bunch of the MMJ Dispensaries (MMJD) being grouped together so that it can have an overreaching impact on the neighborhood. I know that you may not feel that a MMJD will have a negative impact but there are plenty who will disagree with you especially if there are 10 of them in a very close vicinity. I am generally all for letting the market drive competition though, but often there are benefits to have some limitations.
4. Residential Locations- It is not putting a barrier between the patients and the residents as much as it is putting a barrier between the residents and the business. That is a big distinction. Your analogy is way off but that is fine…it is off point so I will keep it off point also.
5. On Premise Consumption- It sounds like it is just the same rules then. I wonder if they will be able to have outside patios then like other businesses that allow smoking of tobacco?
6. Tax/Services- You are missing the point on this one, which I know I did not make it clear in my question. I would agree that most would not go through an elaborate scheme to save a 2% tax, which presumably is passed along to the consumer in one way or another. This is probably a whole new article, but I am pretty sure that MMJD will go the way of providing services as a way to save Federal Income Taxes- it is not a way to save 2% but a way to save a much higher percentage by allowing their ordinary business expenses as allowable tax deductions. I actually presumed that this was likely already in the MMJD community as that seems to have been really the only win for the industry with the IRS. So, it seems that since you don’t feel that they will get around it by offering services, that it is not addressed. It likely is a matter of time before those that want to pay a reasonable amount of federal income tax will go down this road, which means that they will have a choice to decide whether services are part of the 2% tax or not…Further explanation is likely needed on this, because, as I have said before the tax man will come and when he does it has the power to shut things down pretty quick.
7. SA Tax- This seems crazy to me that other businesses have to pay the tax but a MMJD gets a free pass on their past taxes due? Ordinarily local city taxes are due and payable regardless if you have a business license or not. Otherwise, it would encourage the underground businesses. When a traditional business gets “caught” without a business license and having not paid their tax (referring to local gross receipts tax), they have to pony up their past tax and get current. This does not seem to be the case for MMJD’s in this instance.
9. 1 per 15K “Limit”- Unfortunately, there are two little words that will haunt this ordinance and leave people fighting over the meaning: “at least”. If these words would have been removed, it could have put to rest if there is a limitation on the # of MMJD in the city. Right now, a strict reading of the language I believe puts one to believe that there is NO LIMIT to the # of MMJDs allowed. A more rational reading would have the limit but unfortunately, the “at least” language is quite confusing. Kandice/Debbie…can you go on record indicating that you see the confusion and state that the limit is 1 per 15K with a 22 minimum unless otherwise increased by the city council. If it could be re-written to remove “at least” I feel you would have a better ordinance.
Vern – Where is there any hostility in my comment here? I am not hostile – I am outraged by the misrepresentaions and selfishness of the petition sponsors.
Well, call it what you will, your concerns are easily addressed by any person with a little logic and real-world experience.
This was posted on the other thread with no responses…I am hoping someone can help me understand the differences between MMJ and other Prescription Drugs and their distribution through different channels:
———————————–
I was not a CA voter when Prop 215 was passed, but what was the purpose of allowing patients to get a prescription drug outside of a pharmacy? If I am seriously ill and over the counter remedies don’t work, a doctor prescribes to me a drug that I then go to a pharmacy and pick up. The same is true for on-going medications too (i.e. I need it forever for a long-term ailment). The prescription I receive is only good for a limited amount of time and then my doctor has to evaluate me to make sure that another prescription is warranted. What was the Prop 215 argument over why this particular prescription drug is not dispensed through traditional pharmacies with more traditional prescription requirements?
I am more looking for the Pro-215 perspective as opposed to the No-215 perspective. Apologies if I have it wrong on how the collectives are organized and patients receive their prescriptions.
The Food and Drug Administration along with DEA, decided that cannabis is listed is such a way that no doctor or laboratory can reasonably do research on this particular plant without being out of compliance with their dictates and as such either face criminal charges or professional sanctions within the pharmaceutical world. Simply put it is virtually impossible to live within the FDA/DEA guidelines and do any scientific research.
Since ALL drugs must pass through the FDA. If a DEA licensed physician decides to prescribe cannabis they can’t, because then the DEA will pull their permit to dispense. No drug pad, no drugs, no doctors office. It simply isn’t a good situation for patients, period.
While cannabis has a long history of medicinal use, it was outlawed. Since then it’s had numerous detractors and supporters, however DEA & FDA have the power over how the law is applied on a federal level. Individuals found that they might be able to push the FDA/DEA toward a more normalized situation with regard to both it’s research and distribution. It would also help some of those who would receive benefit from it being made available in a non-criminal retail environment.
Some will point to other alternatives that are sometimes available, at higher costs and diminished known capacity in it’s chemical makeup. Marinol is composed of THC only as far as I’m aware and is incomplete with some of the “known” beneficial elements that the plant holds. THC is only one of the many compounds and perhaps not the most beneficial of them, since we really don’t have the scientific studies. Almost exclusively because of it’s DEA listed status as no known benefit and highly abusive. I know of NO known attributable deaths to the natural product, the same can’t be said of Marinol, the manufactured compound.
Here is a reasonable place to view some information regarding the subject;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis
Mr Skallywag, sorry I didn’t get back to over the weekend, I hope this addresses some of your questions as well. Work related and ISP issues, that I hope are resolved now prevented my planned response earlier.
Got it…not in pharmacies, because it logistically can’t be. Sounds like a catch-22. We want it tested and regulated, yet can’t do the testing which hampers the regulation. I for one would much rather see it in the pharmacies and treated like other prescriptions.
Do MMJ prescriptions expire? For example, do patients have to go see their doctors for follow up and re-issuance of their prescriptions, say after a 6 mos period of time (or whatever the time frame is- not evergreen though), which for the most part is how other prescriptions work.
And Alex is being too sober and responsible to make the obvious conclusion here that we all should – it’s Big Pharma’s deathly fear of legal pot along with Big Pharma’s death-grip on the FDA and DEA.
As always we fight tirelessly to expand the tiny corners of freedom that we have.
I would imagine that big pharma would be highly involved with the research, growth, processing, packaging, safe guarding, and distribution of the MMJ if it were to allowed to be researched, approved, and distributed though. I would think that big pharma could profit from it though.
I guess it would be a comparison with MMJ vs other drugs, which may not be as effective.
The scariest part about MMJ to Big Pharma is simple – anyone can grow it in their own back yard.
Are you starting to get it?
Yes, of course, I get it! Is backyard MJ actuallly Medical MJ though? If the gov’t were to test, approve, and control, just as other prescription drugs then home grown would not be medical unless they also put in place reasonable controls for home grown purpose.
For law abiding citizens, there is a rule of law that even if one can do it, they don’t. For some, it won’t matter (I love watching Moonshiners, the TV show, btw). Just as you say, how many bootleg liquor stores are out there- not too many. Well, how many bootleg moonshiners are actually out there too?
I am all for testing, approving if it passes testing, and reasonably controlling it–just as any other medical use drug. If it is medical in nature, treat it like medicine. If it does not meet the hurdle of being a prescription then it can be over the counter.
I don’t believe that I can legally manufacturer other prescription drugs, or maybe I can and I am too lazy to do it.
If DEA licensed physicians are not able to prescribe, who is prescribing MMJ? Maybe the DEA does not have to license all med doctors?
Sorry for my naivety on this…
The “recs” recommendations are “valid” for one year.
There is no consideration for the affect which a proliferation of dispensaries will have on a particular residential, or even commercial, neighborhood – as you admit that market forces (profit) will dictate the distribution of dispensaries – rather than patient need.
Skallywag, despite your accusations that Kandice and I would not be interested in answering these issues, you have an entire article that addresses several question, including yours. We have several months to discuss this issue, and all input is welcome, whether from an overtly hostile opponent, or an excited supporter. This is politics after all.
We will continue the discussion with you for the next few months if it remains civil. If it does not, I will not waste my energy and I will address the same questions from more civil minded sources. Above all, I know that this issue is touchy, I have been fighting for it since I was 18. And in that time I have seen the tides of the drug war change, yet MMJ patients and advocates alike are still treated like second class citizens by many who still choose not to see the other side of the medical marijuana issue.
My analogy to the “whites only lunch counter” is very apt indeed. In California, patients who use MMJ while on dialysis are left to die rather than give them a transplant because they are labeled as narcotic drug users. Oh, give them Oxy, Fentanyl, a million other extremely deadly and addictive substances and they move right up on that list, but give them the drug that actually cures the nausea and vomiting that come with kidney failure and lets them keep their strength long enough to qualify for a transplant and they are left to die instead.
This is just ONE example of how these patients are abused under our current system of society. We will tirelessly fight for the rights of these patients and those who care for them, and will continue to engage as long as it takes. Say what you will but right is right, wrong is wrong and basic human rights are basic human rights. Let’s stop demonizing these patients please.
Good question, about the recommendations!
It’s from those “professionals” that are recognized as able to, frankly I’m confused about it too, how one qualifies and I have been down this rabbit hole. The one guy I saw, was recommended by the place I went to buy it. The last one I saw was in fact a doctor, but is no longer a prescribing doctor under DEA rules, I guess, but I’m not sure. Being under care by multiple doctors for cancer treatment, it was pretty easy to fill out and show him the surgical scars etc. So it was quick and easy.
However, in my experience, it’s the rec system, that really needs the most attention. NOT the sales end. The sales end is however the part the public see’s and smells. If there were some sort of clear guidelines on the recs, I think there would be greater acceptance for those who are in need, like cancer patients.
All that said on my part about need, doesn’t diminish others needs or the problems with compounds that are legally available and highly abused at great cost at both purchase and the cost of the “clean up” after the abuse. I witnessed others seeking rec’s that sure didn’t look ill to me, a layperson, and I know that folks get rec’s for recreational purposes, not true need.
Even with all the problems in the current system, I think it’s better to have what we have now than go backwards to where someone in real need has to resort to driving down some seedy part of town at night to find some crap weed, from a known criminal and take those kinds of risks. I have never felt unsafe at any of the clinics, nor that I was unwelcome and all of them have been helpful, some more than others. The one I go to now or did the last time I went, has been stellar in every way and I believe they comply with all the basic rules, schools, residential distances and all that, it’s clean and always friendly, with good advise.
Most of the complaints I have heard are primarily about the clients after they leave the clinic.
I don’t know Skallywag, but have you ever talked with the owners of the clinics about whatever problems you see in your neighborhood? They might be willing to help you solve them. Then again they might not.
I would expect a free enterprise system even in this realm, from my perspective it works, you complaining about being market driven kinda surprises me in that regard.
SAPD has said that they can’t see any increases in criminal activities in areas around the clinics. Knowing we residents, are always fully informed on that issue I do understand why you might not fully agree with that, but I think if they could show it, they would jump all over that wagon.
Boutwell,
You can brew your own beer, and wine for personal use and I believe you can even distill spirits in small quantities for personal consumption, without getting into legal trouble. Rx drugs are protected by patents so perhaps you could as long as they weren’t for sale. I have heard of folks making “orphan drugs” for their own use, how legal it is I have no idea.
You can certainly grow your own vegetables and herbs, even raise your own livestock within the city guidelines, and you can certainly grow medical quality cannabis in your backyard, thus taking big pharma and the clinics out of the picture. Biggest problem for cancer patients is, you need it before you could actually grow it to a useful state.
Distillation of alcohol for consumption at home is illegal, regardless of quantity.
Home brewing is still prohibited in a small number of states. Federal law sets a limit on both household and individual production on an annual basis . . .
Not to get into it, but home brewing hasn’t exactly put a big dent in “Big Beer’s” pocket book. I don’t think “Big Pharma’s” fear is being realistically portrayed.
Alex, the proponents, NORML and collectives in concern have all discussed the very good possibility of having community meetings where members of the community can address their concerns. They have already expressed their excitement at the idea, and it’s nice to see that their is interest on the other side of the fence as well. Let’s arrange this! 😀
Debbie,
Would your group be willing to address Santa Ana’s Comm-Link on the dispensary issue? Comm-Link is the parent organization of Santa Ana’s many Neighborhood groups. I think that could be arranged.
I will check alex. it shouldn’t be too hard to arrange
Alex…looks like I am not the only one confused by this. then I have to imagine that confusion adds another barrier. I think that most people would think that if it was medicine, then it should be treated just like medicine. Tested by the FDA. Produced by drug manufacturers. Distribution controlled. Prescribed by MD’s. Dispensed through pharmacies. Consumed by patients.
The Fed vs State law is an ongoing problem in more than one aspect.
I for one has seen an increase to crime in our area…I would definitely not be able to make a connection to MMJD though (nor do I necessarily believe it to be the case btw).
Boutwell,
If you’re confused now, you should be in the middle of chemo and try to figure it all out! Um, no, you should never be in the middle of chemo, nobody should…but you know what I mean by that I hope.
I just want to get well!
If that means I have to use some herb to do it, OK by me. I certainly am not happy with the side effects of most of the drugs they gave me to counter act the drugs they gave me to kill the cancer. I don’t think of medicine as just coming from the drug store either, herbs have been around a lot longer in use as meds and have a long history of healing. A lot longer than Bayer or Phizer!
I don’t WANT to take any of it!
I just want to go back to my nice quiet life and stop feeling like I have an obligation to tell everyone about all this stuff.
I’m tired of fighting for what should be a nobrainer. However the truth is, I am alive today only (imho) because I had the benefit of cannabis as a therapeutic adjunct to my cancer treatments.
I do know what you mean and can certainly understand your desire to get better using the means that are best for your own body- no one knows your body better than you do!
I should have included this link as well above, sorry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Cannabis
As well this one on the history of why it’s illegal;
http://www.alternet.org/story/77339/debunking_the_hemp_conspiracy_theory
There is no limit to the number of dispensaries in Santa Ana in the proposed ordinance.
“At least 1 medical cannabis collective or cooperative per 15,000 (or fraction thereof) residents of the City .. shall be the maximum number registered unless raised by the City Council.”
The term “At least” is not limiting at all. The “formula” is bogus. I ask for the opinion of the OJB counselor on this so-called “limiting” language.
I also would love to hear Debbie’s or Greg’s thoughts on this…I can certainly see how it was very poor wording at best and an open door policy at worst.
Here’s how I read it. The proposed ordinance recognizes that there may be some pressure to limit the number of dispensaries and it therefore sets a floor beyond which such pressure cannot compress their availability. That section of it does not itself seem to limit the number of dispensaries, so long as countervailing pressure from the community operates, that is what provides the actual limitation. If the community decides that “hey, this really is preferable to what we had previously after all, and more of them would be even better” then the number of dispensaries could increase without a change in the law.
Note: there my be limits in other parts of the proposed ordinance that I’ve overlooked.
So, I’ll grant skally that I don’t see this as a de jure limit, but I think that the proponents are correct if they argue that the public opposition to greater expansion provides a de facto limit. I also agree with (I think it was) Vern that once you have the floor number of dispensaries established and functioning smoothly and safely, it becomes much easier to compress the number of dispensaries down to that limit; in that sense I think that it’s fair to argue that this reduces (even if it doesn’t technically “limit”) the number of dispensaries.
How does the community pressure limit the Director of the application process from approving say 50 MMJDs on day one? There is a floor but no ceiling.
What the community wants does not really matter to the Director as they have to follow the ordinance. If they otherwise meet the application criteria, I don’t see that the Director has the ability to deny simply because the community does not want XX number of MMJDs.
I can see that the Directors hands would be tied…even if he/she/Council/Community all wants to have only 22 MMJDs, they would be forced to approve the applications for all qualified registrants. There is not a de facto limit because I don’t see that there is discretion involved with the process…if they meet the registration criteria and the number is under the limit (which there is no limit due to the “at least” language), it seems that the Director would approve them unless the law was changed by a vote of the people.
he sucked you into his bullshit boutwell –
I get sucked into a lot…that is real life. We all live in real life and therefore we get to deal with it. The only thing I can control is my response to it in order to try to figure out a true and accurate reality. My response is appropriate and spot on IMO. Greg’s response to me seems like one of first impression without diving into the language of the ordinance.
Unfortunately, we have not heard from the organizers of the ordinance…will we? Purposely silent or just tied up and busy?
For one thing, politics. For another, what would stop the Council from instructing the Director not to approve more than the floor number of applications? Such an order would not contradict the language of the ordinance, so I don’t see why it would be beyond the power of the Council to act. The Council is only constrained where the contemplated action contradicts the initiative ordinance, right?
So, I presume that you at least see that their really is no stated maximum to the # of MMJD’s per the ordinance, correct? I feel that this would be true due to the “at least” language. If there are other political restraints, I can address that once I re-read it again from that perspective.
Do you feel that this was purposeful or was it an oversight? I hope that it was an oversight and wish those two pesky words were not in the ordinance…”at least”. If they were not in there it would seem so much easier.
I think that you need the “at least” term in order to set a floor. Without the “at least” the Council could arguably set a floor of “0”. Setting of a ceiling above that floor does not appear to be specified in the ordinance and thus appears to be left to the Council. That seem pretty reasonable. What part of the language do you think I’m missing?
(I’m “on call” to be pulled into court today to start my trial if a free judge is available, so if I disappear from here that will be why.)
GD…see below for new comment on “what would stop the Council…”
Bullshit … that is pure bullshit Diamond!
What do the words in the document say?
gawd-dam lawyer bullshit that says nothing!!!!!
respectfully …..
You sit there and beg Greg to weigh in, more than once, and then when he does you discount what he says simply as “lawyer bullshit”?
THAT is bullshit.
If it had been lawyer bullshit, I wouldn’t mind being called on it, but it wasn’t. As it is, I feel like I am trying to reason with my cat.
I’m not going to talk to you until you play nice. Meanwhile, see my response to Boutwell and have some scotch or whatever is your calming drug of choice.
Tonight it is fine tawny port.
Mr Skallywag,
From your question it looks like you have an implied distrust of the city council members, if you see it as non limiting. Would that be fair to say?
Alex – I see that section as non-limiting.
Nothing to do with my trust (or distrust) – it is a problem with the wording which purports to be limiting, but is not limiting at all.
Alex…the non-limiting language is the use of “at least”. For example, 100 is at least 22. 50 is at least 22. The way the language is set forth in the ordinance, the number of MMJDs is “at least” 1 per 15K of population but in no case less than 22. 50 MMJDs are still at least 22. Further, it appears that there is an attempt to limit it by indicating that the CC may increase the number of MMJD’s under the formula. The use of “at least” is problematic if the intention is to have at least 22 but no more than 1 per 15K unless raised by CC.
The language of that part of the ordinance is poorly worded because it provides that “…the formula above which shall be the maximum number registered unless raised by the City Council.” The formula is at least 1 per 15K with 22 minimum.
The formula is at least 1 per 15K with 22 minimum.
I get that part, 22 min. based on a formula of 1:15k there MAY be more added by the city council.
IF we had a population of 2.5 million then we could have as many as 167 as I read it, IF the city council approved it being raised to that level.
But no less than 22 would be allowed to operate.
So what’s the problem?
Sorry, but I still don’t get it???
The problem: if we have a population of 400K, the formula would be “at least” 26 (or maybe 27) dispensaries. 1000 MMJD’s is still “at least 26” so there could be 1000 of them. The council may increase, but not decrease, the #…so they could not decrease it below 26. If there are 1000 dispensaries that want to operate they would not need the CC to increase it because 1000 is “at least 26 (1 per 15K with an assumed 400K population). The use of “at least” is the problem. A strict reading of the language leads one to believe that there is no true maximum because anything above 22 is allowed because it is at least 1 per 15K with a 22 minimum.
I can give more examples if you like…
400k=27 as I read it (any portion there of)
I’m kinda seeing what you’re saying. I need to re-read the actual ordinance again and try to focus on that part of it.
I read it as 22 min. BUT based on 1:15k may be raised as an accommodation to future growth, but no less than 22 can be available at any time even if the population goes down.
It’s better to have 22 than the current 45 isn’t it?
Unless they close down my med provider ;-( in the process.
You are reading what you think it says, and what many likely will believe it to say, instead of what it actually says.
Here is the link:http://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us/coc/documents/medical_cannabis.pdf See bottom of page 6 onto page 7.
BTW, the only legal argument I can really see is based upon 1) intention and 2) undefined maximum.
Intention- the organizers did not intend to for it to be unlimited. As I have looked into this, I have found another initiative from Feb 2012, I believe was likely a predecessor to this, which also says “no less than 20 medical marijuana consumer…” without any limiting language taht I can see…https://www.box.com/shared/cmmqa1x54se218hx4dlk Unfortunately, I am not sure that it is there intention to have limiting language or not.
Undefined Maximum- Since the formula refers to a maximum and everyone should know that “at least” language does not have a maximum, that a reasonable reading of that section is that the “at least” is not part of the formula thereby meaning that the maximum is 1 per 15K.
Unfortunately, the intention language is now troubling to me from the prior incarnation of the ordinance….they should have fixed it if they wanted to limit and restrict the number of MMJDs.
“IF we had a population of 2.5 million then we could have as many as 167 as I read it, IF the city council approved it being raised to that level.”
Not correct…The council does not need to raise it to 167 in your example because the formula is 1 per 15K and 167 is more than 22 (the absolute minimum). Further, if say 1000 MMJDs apply, they would still be “at least 167” and therefore would still be eligible.
Remove the “at least” and the problem resolves itself. 2 little words change the entire meaning.
“Remove the “at least” and the problem resolves itself. 2 little words change the entire meaning.”
That cannot be done boutwell – the proposed ordinance goes to the voters as it is – unless the supporters withdraw it and start over from scratch. I am not even sure if they can withdraw it – maybe not.
I should have said….”if they would have removed the at least…”. It can’t be removed now (thank you for informing me of that fact last week- I did not know, if this as similar to a bill in process- amendments acceptable).
“The formula is at least 1 per 15K with 22 minimum.”
THAT’s the problem Alex – the “at least 1” part. 100-200 or 1,000 per 15K would be permissable.
“At least 1” means ANY number greater than 1 would be okay.
Excellent informative article.
Where do the cities elected/appointed officials stand on this? Does anyone know?
I asked earlier about the decision to “verify” the signatures. was this a council action and who supported it?
Despite most citizens being oblivious to the removal and replacement of the City Manager, is this a “cross-over issue? Was this a subject discussed in the hiring process? It occours to me this subject has MUCH MUCH more impact on communities and neighborhoods than the inside political fighting.
Hass there been council discussions on this?
maybe Junior and Cook can chime in and……..maybe someone else with knowledge (CCCCrrrringe), but, what is the “Official Position of the city government? is there one?
I don’t know much about any decisions, but Santa Ana, the County of Orange and many more cities have banned them. So I think the government people believe there isn’t any merit to these pot clubs.
If it should pass, I think it will end up in court and the initiative will be tossed.
I think that you are correct cook – it will eventually get tossed – possibly due to the flawed “At least” language.
In other words. The elected members of the council have NOT taken a position.
That’s sad. Considering there was much consertation aboutSanta Ana politicians attending a parade in which two dozen gay Asians were denied the right to march…….in another city.
They have banned them in Santa Ana.
That sure seems like a postion to me.
Debbie/Kandice, I was hoping that you could address the “at least” language confusion for us.
I’m still thinking it would only allow the number to change by either/or, both an increase in the population (X) or council approval(+). Not “and council approval” as I first thought.
It’s not entirely clear to me that it could be raised to, X+y above the population number, without council approval.
The wording is kinda awkward.
That may be the intention (or is it??) but it is not how it reads. The use of “at least” does not put a ceiling on the number. The last sentence of 18-612 says that the formula above is the max number. The formula above is the at least 1 per 15K with a 22 minimum. Therefore, there is no maximum because every # of MMJDs as long as there are least 1 per 15K.
Examples:
1. Population is 345K. 1 per 15 = 23. Minimum is 23. 100 MMJDs apply for license and are otherwise eligible. Since 100 is at least 23, they are all able to operate.
1. Population is 690K. 1 per 15 = 46. Minimum is 46 b/c it is higher than 22 floor. 200 MMJDs apply for license and are otherwise eligible. Since 200 is at least 46, they are all able to operate.
The language is implying that there is a limit set forth in the last sentence of 18-612 but the formula that it references to is “at least” 1 per 15K of population with a 22 absolute minimum…there is no maximum. Is that what they intended? I am not sure. Prior language had “no less than 20” with no mention of a maximum, so I am doubting if there was actually intention to have a maximum…
Alex Coe,
From your experience, could you inform us as to what you have observed – as a true medical cannabis patient in need – what percentage of dispensary customers are actual patients in need (as yourself) vs. pot heads in there for the high?
Mr Skallywag,
I don’t have an answer that I’m comfortable with. I know that migraine isn’t something you can see externally or that is present all the time. I hear however it works about as good as imitrex for some.
From observation of customer base – I would guess 90% pot heads and 10% true patients.
Any other reponses out ther folks? Afterall, this is “All the questions you were not afraid to ask.”
I’ll ask again – for the group:
From your experience, could you inform us as to what you have observed – as a true medical cannabis patient in need – what percentage of dispensary customers are actual patients in need (as yourself) vs. pot heads in there for the high?
So you’re saying that for MM dispensaries in California, which require a recommendation from a doctor and a state-issued MM identification card for the patient in order to dispense MM, that 90% of the people they dispense to have neither the doctor’s rec. or the ID card?
I’ve never, ever seen one you could get into without a rec, never.
I am saying that it is real easy, with $75.00 and a “headache” to get a doc’s recommendation and that that is probably at least 75% of an average dispensaries customer base.
Alex – I answered your questions ……
Skallywag,
who cares if a patient needs pot to live a fairly normal life and one who wants to smoke pot recreationally? I smoked pot because I enjoyed it and I ate pot cookies to get me through the side effects of chemo. The ones who object to pot being legalized are big pharma. They want people to get high on their *approved* drugs that cost a shitload of money! Its nobodys beeswax if someone wants to smoke pot for whatever reason. And the cops like the revenue from arresting offenders so they have a financial stake in this too.
I was being honest, sorry it wasn’t what you wanted, but remember my visits were pretty short and infrequent and in thinking about it, I really can’t give you an answer I fell real great with. My gut says maybe 50/50 BUT I could be very wrong at that guess.
The clinic I’ve gone to for most of the time I’ve been sick isn’t very big and I usually only see one or two other people there at any given time. Most of those visits I would say that most of us were patients or caregivers. One from a nursing home that was serving several patients, who I did have several conversations with ironically and there’s nothing wrong with her, so maybe it’s not always that easy to say who is or isn’t, hence my hesitation.
The one I went to first, I would say had more loadies there than patients, but I only went there a couple of times and think is in the area that you have more experience with, on 17th. They were helpful, don’t get me wrong, but I didn’t feel real comfortable there for some reason and it was a longer drive.
I’ve never sat outside one and observed the average clients, so my observations are very limited. Like most guys, get in, get what you need and get out. It’s not like I was there hanging out like a coffee shop or bar.
Debra/Kandice…are the only MMJD’s that are eligible for registration approval those that were operating on 12/31/11? Sec 18-615(a)(8) indicates that a MMJD has to submit documentaiton that they had begun operations at their existing location prior to 12/31/11.
If true, what is the reasoning for only allowing those that were in existence in Dec 2011?
If false, am I just mis-reading or is this not a grounds for disqualification (i.e. felonies appear to be grounds for disqualification), although without it, I would think that the Director would consider the application incomplete.
“If true, what is the reasoning for only allowing those that were in existence in Dec 2011?”
boutwell – They need to keep the membership in the cartel small in order to maximize profit.
anon – Posted:
“You sit there and beg Greg to weigh in, more than once, and then when he does you discount what he says simply as “lawyer bullshit”? THAT is bullshit.”
I won’t be asking for any more free opinions of the OJB counselor – “marginal legal advise that’s worth what you pay for it.”
And we appreciate your VERY compelling rebuttal.
anon – If you want compelling rebuttal – read my original posted comment in this article – I won’t waste time on such gobbelty-guck garbage as mr. diamond posted.
Tell me your background in statutory (or ordinance) interpretation, skally. I realize that you need no special qualifications to loudly deem something as bullshit, but that doesn’t mean that you’ve done so accurately.
I have a long and deep record in bullshit detection – and my bullshit detector was pegged off the gauge at your reply.
I’ll bet that you couldn’t explain yourself if your life depended on it, which it clearly doesn’t.
I’ll argue specifics with you, rather than your emotional global assessment — or rather I would if you had the guts. Thanks for your contribution.
I don’t have a lawyer training in bullshit artistry – but I will give it a shot.
Here you go diamond – your comment makes no fucking logical sense and anyone who thinks that it does is an idiot.
We have two words for that sort of argument, skally. One is “conclusory,” as in an argument that essentially simply restates its conclusion. I’ll spare you my printing the other one.
Greg: “For another, what would stop the Council from instructing the Director not to approve more than the floor number of applications? Such an order would not contradict the language of the ordinance, so I don’t see why it would be beyond the power of the Council to act. The Council is only constrained where the contemplated action contradicts the initiative ordinance, right?”
Unfortunately, the Director is directed under 18-616(g) to “continue processing applications until the maximum number of collectives and cooperative registrations have been issued a Notice of Completed Registration…”. So, the Director does not seem to have much judgement over this unless the public changes the ordinance through a vote. If the Council were to instruct the Director to only issue say 25 MMJD’s, they would be asking him/her to contradict the ordinance as stated in 18-616(g). This would be the case since that section says continue to issue until the max number has been issued and the max number is “at least” some number which does not offer a limit.
Based on my interpretation and reading, which maybe someone can chime in on, would be that there is not true limit other than the number of MMJD’s who would otherwise qualify. Since only those MMJD’s that were operating at their current and future location (seems like it must be the same), as stated in 18-615(a)(8), would be eligible, maybe the limit is just that…only those grandfathered MMJDs. Seems kind of “you must be in the club” to me…does not seem right.
The prior incarnation of this ordinance I believe actually named the dispensaries who would qualify…is there more to this than meets the eyes? The more I look into it, the more I wonder. Why would one who would be in favor of MMJ not want another, better clinic, come into the city? Strange…thanks in advance for hopefully good responses.
Just give the DEA the list of those grandfather and illegal pot cubs so they can be seized and shut down, and even if the measure is passed by the voters, there would not be any qualified shops to license.
If the DEA wants the list, all they have to do is look at the original ordinance language as they clearly state who the ones that should be allowed to operate are:
https://www.box.com/shared/cmmqa1x54se218hx4dlk
However, I believe that the DEA has bigger concerns than going after MMJD’s- at least most days of the year. Now, the IRS may be quite interested in this list!!
Boutwell, Boutwell — WHO SETS THE “MAXIMUM NUMBER”?
The ordinance appears not to do so. That leaves space open for the Council to do so. And that is what constrains the Director.
If the ordinance says “Council shall set no maximum,” that would be different — but so far as I’ve seen it doesn’t. If the ordinance doesn’t speak to this, nothing prevents the Council from acting.
Naming them would be a bad reason because if they changed their name — or arguably ownership — they’d be out of luck.
Diamond, Diamond…the ordinance clearly sets the formula for the maximum number which is at least 1 per 15K of population with a minimum of 22. That is in the ordinance. It is not up to the Council or Director to set it because the ordinance sets it. It clearly indicates that language in the ordinance.
The Council would not be able to change that…a vote of the people I guess would. The Director has to follow the ordinance. The ordinance sets the max…unfortunately, it is an unlimited maximum because the formula uses “at least” but it is still a maximum.
So, “WHO SETS THE “MAXIMUM NUMBER”?”…the ordinance does. The Director issues registrations until he/she hits the maximum #. Houston, we have a problem…
If the only bad reason you see for only allowing those who were operating in their same location at Dec 2011 would be name changes, then we should have that discussion…I see many problems with such a “good old boys/girls club”.
I see the ordinance as setting bounds on Council authority. The Council can’t establish a maximum of over 1 per 15K or a minimum of under 22. Within that range, the Council can set a maximum and minimum. The maximum set by the Council, within the bounds established by the ordinance, is what the Director has to follow.
What do you see in the ordinance that contradicts that eminently reasonable interpretation?
Counselor, are you reading the ordinance? It clearly states “at least”. At least will set a floor. It does not set a ceiling. The maximum is “at least” 1 per 15K. I can understand how one might WANT it to say how you are interpreting it. I can certainly even understand that is what it is SUPPOSED to read…however, it does not read that way. I was actually thinking that it was supposed to read as your “reasonable interpretation” indicates…, but it does not.
Obviously, reasonable intent can be a legal argument especially based on substance over form. We both know that. I just want to know if that is the intent. Unfortunately, we have a prior ordinance from the same group +/- that also has similar language with no use of maximum.
At least 1 per 15K, minimum of 22, Council can increase the maximum, but cannot decrease the minimum. The maximum is the prior formula: at least 1 per 15K.
If your statement above should read as follows from the ordinance “I see the ordinance as setting bounds on Council authority. The Council can’t establish a maximum of over at least 1 per 15K or a minimum of under 22. Within that range, the Council can set a maximum and minimum. The maximum set by the Council, within the bounds established by the ordinance, is what the Director has to follow.” Hence, since the max is at least 1 per 15K, there is no ceiling to what the Director has to follow.
I am sure that under oath, you would agree that 100 is at “at least” 22. 50 is “at least” 25. You pick the numbers…you would love to have that type of discussion with a witness under oath also. IF they did not know that 100 was “at least” 22, etc…have fun with that one.
Again, I would love to have someone from the ordinance go on record to provide their intent and provide why they used “at least”…I really do. It could be a simple mistake. I believe that you may talk with them, so maybe you can have one of them provide their intent/interpretation as well as respond why only those MMJD’s operating in Dec 2011 appear to be able to be eligible to register.
There are many doctors that specialize in obtaining a medical marijuana card for you, and are more than happy to help guide you through the process. Some of the doctors even offer guaranties such as “get your medical marijuana card or don’t pay” It really doesn’t get any more clear than that.
The reasons that a person can qualify for medical marijuana are both numerous and vague. The main reason to get your medical marijuana card is of course so that you can smoke legally, but another great benefit is that Medical marijuana is simply a much higher quality of marijuana – medical marijuana is far superior than that available through a street dealer.
So if you have not yet, go get your medical marijuana card.
PS: I was going to go further through this particular website, but my anti-virus shut the webpage down on my computer – nice people there on the weed-web. I won’t present the link here for that reason.
“but another great benefit is that Medical marijuana is simply a much higher quality of marijuana – medical marijuana is far superior than that available through a street dealer.” ..skallywag
Come on, that is an opinion and not a proven fact.
That opinion of Skally’s is nonsense.
Hi grade marijuana has been around since the late 70’s, most of it coming from farmers in Northern California. Now it’s far and away the largest cash crop in the nation approaching 36 billion annually. Made in the USA !
Skally needs a better street dealer.
Well .. that’s what the stoners say cook. Their websites are NOT all about the efficacy of the “medicine” they are about ………..
“Came in here today and split an 8th of extreme green crack and the xj-13. All i can say is proper as shit! crystalized, sticky, beautifully cured and smokes awesome. Bombass shit – “=) Gooood times. Thank You”
Can you prove that the person who wrote that isn’t ALSO using it for a legitimate, medical purpose?
anon – of course I can’t prove that – that is the point – we need a new standard.
There’s already a standard;
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/mmp/pages/default.aspx
anon – I know there is a standard & it is poorly written and to loose.
What I said was that we need a NEW standard – one that “weeds” out the stoners from those who truly receive a medical benefit from use. And I don’t mean the $100.00 recommendation card “standard” we have now. Everyone knows that is bogus – but it is allowed because people like Debbie and Kandice trot out their 90 year old lovely grandlady in a wheel chair to garner the sympathy of the voters. All the while those two and the dispensaries are mercenaries at heart.
Although I would be willing to overlook all of that if they would put dispensaries 600 ft. away from residential, parks etc. and spread the dispensaries around the City equitably and no closer than 1,000 from each other and be subject to reasonable Conditional Use Restrictions – and maybe a couple of other reasonable restrictions.
Put that in your hash pipe and smoke it.
Diamond – The ordinance should have left out the “At least” language and rather should have used language similar to:
The formula “shall be 1 per 15K, unless raised by the City Council” – that would have eliminated a lot of confusion and lack of clarity.
I agree with you Skally…I sure would like to hear from Debbie or Kandice on it also. The most troubling part is that I am not sure if it was an oversight or purposeful.
Same with the Dec 2011 existence requirement (almost a full 3 years from when the vote will take place).
That’s unnecessary if you see the ordinance as setting the boundaries under which the Council — as a legislative body — can set the maximum and minimum. This, if you think about it — and I’ll emphasize the “if” — makes a lot of sense.
See above post (5:11pm)…the boundaries set are as follows (per Sec 18-612):
Minimum: 22
Maximum: At least 1 per 15K
The CC can raise the maximum if they choose (although, there is no reason to due to the use of “at least”). The CC cannot decrease the maximum, which again, is “at least” 1 per 15K. If they try to put a maximum on the # of MMJD’s that are able to be issued registrations, they would be in violation of the ordinance’s language.
The Director “shall continue processing applications until the maximum number of collective and cooperative registrations have been issued a Notice of Completed Registration and placed on the registration list.” Per Sec 18-616(g), the Director keeps issuing until they hit the Maximum. The Maximum is at least 1 per 15K.
So, the CC cannot decrease the maximum. Only a vote of the people can. Therefore, the Director has no choice but to process app’s until the maximum of at least 1 per 15K is met….
Now…can you see why I think that this was poor wording and a mistake? How does it get cleared up? You deal with legal language presumably every day…me, a little bit less, but not much.
Dispensaries should be be required to be located in buildings that are ADA compliant – that is not required under this ordinance.
This ordinance specifically relieves dispensaries of ANY parking requirements – including Handicap Parking – that is just wrong.
Isn’t the idea of this proposed ordinance, to serve the afflicted?
Greg Diamond Posted –
“I see the ordinance as setting bounds on Council authority. The Council can’t establish a maximum of over 1 per 15K”
How do you figure that diamond? The language is “At least 1 per 15K” – it is not “no more than 1 per 15K” – you make no logical sense dude.
And then you say – “the Council can set a maximum” – so what is it? – they can or they can’t set a maximum?
You make no logical sense dud.
“What do you see in the ordinance that contradicts that eminently reasonable interpretation?”
I think you need to put the hash pipe down diamond.
OK, skally, I read it again (it had been a few days.) I’ll type in Sec. 18-612 below and then address your confusion.
Here’s what that means: Santa Ana must have at least 22 medical cannabis collectives or cooperatives (“MCCCs”), if that many eligible people apply for them. That’s true if Santa Ana dwindles down to a population of 330; it’s true if its population dwindles to 33,000; it’s true if its population is exactly 330,000. That’s the initial “floor” number.
Now: if the population of Santa Ana grows to at least 330,001, then the city must agree to register a 23rd MCCC. If it grows to 345,001, it must agree to register a 24th. If it grows to 360,001, it must agree to register a 25th. I think you can follow the pattern there.
Unless the City Council decides otherwise, then this minimum is also the maximum. That’s a key point — and you don’t seem to get it so far.
However, if the Council wishes, then it may increase this maximum number of MCCCs. There’s no limit on how much the Council can increase this maximum — except for the political limitations that are posed by the electorate. So my initial point that it’s the Council — not the ordinance — that sets the maximum is correct. The limitation on the number of MCCCs is that if the Council makes the number too high, it may get voted out of office. If the population doesn’t do so, it acquiesces in the higher limit.
Putting skally aside now: Boutwell, you’re a relatively sane and sensible guy — is that clear? Is it clear why “at least” is used simply to set a floor, while allowing the Council, through it’s political process, to set a higher ceiling if it wishes? And is it clear that if doesn’t wish to do so, the ceiling is not raised?
I agree Greg, with your interpretation IF it had said that the CC must determine the # of MMJD’s that can be registered. Unless the CC does, it forces the Director to continue to issue them until he/she hits the max. Your response is a good one though IMO.
However, the goal of the ordinance I thought was to allow the people to vote to put a max on the # of the MMJD’s. I would write more, but I have to go….
You’re not giving force to the final line: “[the minimum amount in the formula] shall be the maximum number registered unless raised by the City Council.”
But doesn’t the “at least” mean that the minimum number is potentially infinite? That’s a potential reading — but it’s not a good reading because if that were so there would be no need to discuss the Council’s ability to “increase” the allocation under that formula, because one can’t increase infinity by adding integers to it. Thus, the formula is “an additional 22 for the first 315,001 people and an additional one for every 15,000 increase in population above that.” The “At least” term simply recognizes the fact that, under the statute, the Council can augment this formula. That’s all. No need for people to get so excited.
Hopefully, if nothing else, you can see how this could have been worded so much better. This is one of the reasons why there are attorneys on both sides of most cases- confusing language. I for one, like to have it clearly stated. This is why I like to actually read contracts and agreements up front- clarify the language before signatures are inked.
Your emphasis/language you added is a perfect example…you are inserting your reading of it. I can see how it could be read that way, but it does not indicate the minimum amount in the formula, it reads “…the formula which shall be the maximum…”. The formula is at least 1 per 15K. Without inserting the “minimum amount in the formula” you arrive at an infinitely high maximum…this obviously puts the Director in a difficult position.
Your “but doesn’t…” is pretty much exactly what I have said (almost verbatim btw) would be the reasonable intent explanation as opposed to the exact language reading- since an infinite number is not a true maximum, they obviously would not intend for the “at least” to be part of the “formula”. It so easily could have been remedied through better language- there are so many ways to make it clearer. I would have to imagine that the organizers, would have cleared the language up if they saw this thread prior to getting sigs (remember, my initial stream was, well how do we “fix/clarify” this in the ordinance).
I fully understand where you are coming from and that you are applying the minimum is also the maximum concept- I can now argue both sides on this, but it will continue to be a circular argument IMO, which both interpretations have validity. Hence, I would also love to hear from the organizers of the ordinance what they meant as well as address the other important items…hopefully at some point they will address it. So many lingering questions: taxation of services (yes, this will be the “trend” IMO in the future to avoid the tax man’s hammer), prior acts, Dec 2011 requirement, lingering “at least” concerns, etc…
The language of the proposed ordinance and your explanation of same are painfully convoluted – the language I proposed above accomplishes what you describe, but is clearer and not subject to misinterpretation.
No, they are not convoluted to anyone who studies statutory interpretation. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about because this is not your area of expertise — but you think that you do. It’s like my coming over to your company any telling you the right way to manufacture your product. You’re a bright guy, skally, but you’re untrained.
Mr Skallywag,
I agree with you on the ADA and handicapped parking requirements, but I also understand that it may not always be available in some of the older building stock available in our fair city. It would certainly make sense to me, if I was going to operate one.
I am heartened that the “house legal adviser” concludes as I did, on reading the proposed ordinance and how it derives the quantity of allowed establishments.
I don’t however disagree either with your assertion that the language is confusing and could have been worded better.
I would also add the manner of qualifying those who will be granted certificates of occupancy, legal status to do business within the city, could have been done in a better manner.
All of this may be pointless, what with the ruling today on Oakland and pending federal legislation.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/judge-rules-against-oakland-in-medical-marijuana-lawsuit.html
“The minimum is the maximum” – that is just fuckin’ loopy.
You would be embarrassing yourself here if you were capable of embarrassment. If they said “22 dispenaries, period” the minimum would also be the maximum, right? So what’s so startling about the idea that the minimum could be the maximum — unless the Council sets a higher maximum?
You said “the minimum “IS” the maximum” bub – NOT “could be.”
What I said, bub, was “Unless the City Council decides otherwise, then this minimum is also the maximum.” That’s correct. Take away the first subordinate clause and “is” would have to become “could be,” as it would only apply in the absence of the City Council deciding otherwise.
Is this too hard for you?
The language is confusing because the person who authored it was probably stoned off his ass! Now let’s smoke a spliff and see if it starts to make sense, then all go out for ice cream!
“At least 1 medical cannabis collective or cooperative per 15,000 (or fraction thereof) residents of the City .. shall be the maximum number registered unless raised by the City Council.”
“At least” – those two words lead to confusion are not necessary in order to convey the meaning of this sentence.
“1 medical cannabis collective or cooperative per 15,000 (or fraction thereof) residents of the City .. shall be the maximum number registered unless raised by the City Council.”
That’s all you need – means the same thing – no need for “the maximum is the minimum.” The fewer words the better – so sayeth Abe Lincoln.
Now you’re arguing about the elegance of the drafting, not whether it’s misleading. I’m not inclined to argue the point. What matters to me is whether it is likely to create a serious problem of statutory interpretation. I don’t think that it will. That argument against the initiative therefore does not move me. We’ll get to your other arguments in time.
if you have to pay a $1700.00 for registration fee and you are denied ..do you get a refund?