,
Occasional OJ blogger and tireless medical marijuana warrior Debbie Tharp, still fighting Costa Mesa Mother’s Market over last year’s trespassing charges, has completed the herculean task (leading a team of other heroes) of qualifying a reform initiative for Santa Ana’s November 2014 ballot with 17,000 signatures – 6000 over what was needed – while overcoming the usual obstacles and dirty tricks that city bureaucrats tend to throw at these measures.
So Santa Anans will get to vote, November 2014, on the “Medical Cannabis Restriction and Limitation Initiative,” which will limit the number of medical mj collectives in their fine town to one for every 15,000 residents. It’s predicted maybe twenty being able to apply for and receive a license to operate in the city. The measure will also levy a 2% tax all all collectives that remain operational, to go toward the city budget.
Similar to last year’s failed attempt in Costa Mesa, which THAT city government smothered with a dozen dirty tricks, this measure is intended to remedy the current situation in Santa Ana, which is a free-for-all. Technically there’s been a ban on Santa Ana collectives since 2009, yet the town has more than any other OC town! A couple of these collectives even violate Prop 215 by operating closer to schools than state law allows. This initiative reinforces state law in that respect and would force those collectives to shut down. The collectives that are granted a license will be allowed to operate in certain zones in the city which are spelled out in the initiative.
This initiative will create a compromise with the city, rather than continuing the current chaotic situation, and it will give Santa Ana the ability to work with collectives and the community. The important thing here is to protect patients’ rights to access, while respecting the rights of the community and business owners in the community.
Santa Ana Government’s Dirty Tricks, and how our heroes overcame them!
Cities always tend to throw up dirty tricks of one kind or another to keep these initiatives from qualifying, for whatever reason. Both the dirty tricks I’ve been told about in this case seem to have come from Santa Ana City Clerk Maria Huizar.* [see below] I’m asking around to see what may have motivated her – instructions from Mayor Pulido? Instructions from the Council in general? Or is it just something that City Clerks like to do?
Remember last year, when Take Back Anaheim was told they needed the signatures of 10% of Anaheim voters to qualify their “Let the People Vote” initiative, and then RIGHT before the deadline was up, the City Clerk suddenly told them “Whoops, actually you need 15%” – and there was no time left to get that many?
I didn’t realize how common that little “mistake” was! But you know who HAS seen that little “mistake” before? One of Debbie’s most brilliant and valuable colleagues, Kandice Hawes of OC Norml. Says Debbie, “Kandice’s strategic planning and foresight paid off in SPADES!”
Kandice Hawes
SO, as they began this process in August, with a deadline of January 25, our heroes were told by Ms. Huizar that they would only need 4700 signatures. Okay. Are you sure? Lawyers for our heroes opined privately that the figure might really be 10,900. But no, our heroes verified several times with Ms. Huizar. They had FIVE DIFFERENT PEOPLE call her and ask. She repeatedly affirmed the number, and later when Debbie herself called to make sure “This number is not going to change, right?” Ms Huizar snapped, “YES. AND PLEASE QUIT CALLING.”
Then, lo and behold, sure enough, when Huizar heard they were about to turn in the signatures, it was suddenly 10,900 that would be needed – “Any less than that and you guys won’t qualify.” But Kandice had foreseen this happening, and the card our heroes had up their sleeve was TIME – still a couple of months left to go before the deadline. So they got back on the street, re-doubled their efforts, and eventually turned in an utterly ridiculous 17,000.
It’s customary to have a “cushion,” because some sigs will get disqualified, but a cushion THAT huge? Indestructible.
Didn’t stop the city though, from going through and disqualifying hundreds of them for frivolous reasons. Three hundred were disqualified because the old guy who took them wrote his dates down kind of funny – the way he wrote “12 3 12” for December 3, 2012, could have been misread as 1 23 12 – January 23 – and the city INSISTED on reading it that way. Three hundred disqualified that way – not NEARLY enough to sink the project – but still it pissed off Debbie seeing ANY VOTERS disenfranchised like that.
Debbie responds to a few more of my questions, late last night on the internets:
“We had a lot of fluent, Spanish-speaking circulators, since this was Santa Ana. The ones who couldn’t speak fluently let the fluent ones handle the spanish speaking community members. And all members of the community were equally receptive. Everyone in Santa Ana knows that the current situation is untenable. There was no hostility at all. when I explained the issue to people as I walked that this was an initiative that would limit collectives while still protecting patient access, some of them actually yanked the clipboard out of my hand to sign it.
“And we were validating with one of the best files in the business from start to finish with three disk updates, thanks to Rick Fenton, the best data man the political world has to offer.
“In conclusion, I just want to thank those of you who worked so hard on getting this initiative qualified, and to thank the volunteers as well. Kandice, who ran this whole thing from start to finish while kicking ass in college deserves massive kudos for making all the right choices. This is my first baby that I got to have my hands on from the signature gathering side from start to finish, and it was such a pleasure to be able to do it with someone who has shown me nothing but support in all my other political efforts for the past five years.
“This is a happy moment for all who worked so hard against the odds and a deck that was stacked against them from the beginning. The hurdles that they all faced were just no match for the forces who gave their heart and soul to fight for what is right. There just is no match, no political strategy, that will ever be able to replace the advantage of simply being right, and knowing that you are.”
Now 18 months, to make sure Santa Ana votes YES on this puppy!
* Councilwoman Michele Martinez calls and speaks highly of Huizar’s professionalism and says the misunderstandings were honest.
Great work!
Oh, Santa Ana City Clerk Maria D. Huizar, why must you make us want to get you fired like this?
I’d like to see sworn declarations from the people who verified the numbers from her regarding what she said and when, I’d like to see her try to explain herself, and then I’d like to see the Council decide whether they want to put up with someone either that deceptive or incompetent. I’m open to the possibility that she had a good reason — though unless it corrupted her mental functions or her eternal soul I can’t think of what it might be.
Santa Ana MMJ Petition Lies, distortions and falsehoods
The dispensaries supporting the MMJ petition say:
“The intent of this Ordinance is to restrict and limit the number of medical cannabis collectives and cooperatives operating or which may operate in the City of Santa Ana.”
This proposed ordinance does nothing to designate an “appropriate number” – or any limited number – of pot shops operating in the City.
The dispensaries supporting the MMJ petition say that:
“patients (are) forced to incur hardship and expense of traveling great distances to obtain their medicine”
The proposed ordinance does nothing to distribute dispensary locations throughout the City in order to prevent their patients from traveling clear across the City to obtain their medicine.
Dispensaries say they are providing for:
“safe and affordable distribution of medical marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.” and that “seriously ill residents of Santa Ana can obtain and use cannabis.”
Their 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. And of course the sale of marijuana will not be limited to the residents of Santa Ana – all pot heads with a supposed headache will be welcome pot shop customers, regardless of where they come from.
Sec. 2, (f) says: “access to medical cannabis should occur in a safe and orderly manner with policies and regulations to protect patients and the community.”
From the MMJ proposed ordinance, “Nothing in this article purports to affirmatively authorize activities that are otherwise illegal under Federal Law.”
That statement is obviously false as the cultivation and distribution of marijuana is illegal under Federal law.
Obviously the dispensaries are more interested in obtaining the highest volume of sales with greatest number of, and best locations for, pot shops rather than assure that patients have adequate local access and that certain neighborhoods are not overburdened with a proliferation of pot shops.
The petition denies the City the power regulate the operation of marijuana dispensaries beyond that of a candy store. The MMJ ordinance calls for dispensaries to be operate as a matter of right – they will not be held to any special or conditional use standards beyond the practically non-existent standards within the proposed ordinance.
The petition does nothing to ensure that marijuana dispensaries will not be located adjacent to residential neighborhoods.
There is a very special consideration given to dispensaries “A Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued regardless of parking requirements.” No other business in the City of Santa Ana has THAT special privilege. How are their “patients” with medical issues supposed to have adequate access without a requirement for Handicapped Parking?
The pot shops would have us believe that there would be medical marijuana available if it were not for them – that is false. In the City of Santa Ana there are already (5) categories of licensed healthcare facilities authorized and permitted to dispense medicinal marijuana to patients in need. We don’t need store front pot shops with little more regulation than a candy store operating in the City of Santa Ana.
Skally…why do you say that the ordinance does nothing to limit the # of dispensaries (paraphrased)? When I read it, it seems to have a minimum of 22 and a maximum of 1 shop per 15K residents. The council can increase the number, presumably after appropriate public discussion and comment, but cannot decrease it. I want to make sure that I am reading this correctly…
The parking issue is bad in my opinion. I am sure that other businesses would love to have that treatment.
BOUTWELL,
You are forgetting, this council does NOT discuss thier decisions with the public. Rather they hide behind “closed sessions” and leak snippets to friendly websites and/or reporters!
What was the deal with the count? They wanted 100% verification if the sample didn’t prove out or something. In the end they didn’t have to pay, I didn’t catch that part.
OK…got it. The part about Council increasing, which is a possibility, is the issue on that end for you. Not sure what you mean by your 2nd paragraph…
There was some question from the New Council member Monday night about the reimbursement for checking sig’s.
I guess my question is/was did the city pay extra to check 100% of the signatures instead of relying on the sample batch that is standard in most initaitives? If so was this approved by a council vote?
Hey Skallywag. have you Ever considered that you might be an asshole?
If what is claimed about the 6K to 11K switch is correct, there needs to be a different system…actually probably a different system regardless. I would think that a written statement from the clerk certifying the number of qualified signatures required for an initiative to hit the ballot would be something that all parties would want to have.
Crazy….
The IRS will be the downfall of the Medical MJ industry…especially for the smaller shops who likely will not have the legal and tax team behind them. If the feds want to crack down, they will come after them and could potentially come down quite hard on them. The FBI and Police could not get Capone, but the IRS did (not sure if that is true or just folklore).
Question: if there are already shops in violation of the law now, why do we think that the proposed law would be enforced? I would think that the city should enforce what is on the books now…or maybe, the “powers” plan is to not enforce right now indicating that this initiative is not needed and then if it fails, then they clean up.
By the way, the minimum number of shops is 22 per the law (Sec 18-612). How many shops are operating right now? I am pretty sure that I drive by 3 of them on my short drive everyday.
Capone really was convicted of tax evasion.
There were 2 chances on a election. If 15 percent (of total registered voters) were good a special election would be held, If 10 percent (of total registered voters) were good then it would tag onto the next November election.
Since it will be on November’s election in 2014, which means that about 20 percent of those checked by the ROV failed.
Now for your comment about the city clerk is just plain BS. The county ROV did the counting and verifying. The rules are state of California rules and the promoters are to verify want was needed from the ROV.
So your heading “OVER-qualifies Medical Marijuana Initiative for Santa Ana.” Is wrong and miss leading and maybe barely qualified.
But congratulations on getting it on the ballot.
Cook, Kind of off in your first prediction? The one you made over on OC Weekly? You said: “robincook
11 days ago
SANTA ANA – Supporters of a proposed initiative to allow medical dispensaries to operate in Santa Ana on Thursday turned in nine boxes of signatures to the city in an effort to place the measure on the citywide ballot.
City Clerk Maria Huizar said Thursday her staff counted 16,948 signatures, which could be enough to set a special election.
…………………………
The ROV needs to verify the signatures.
I expect that ¼ to 1/3 will be duplicates because of the short term memory loss of pot smokers.
Another 10 to 15 percent for people not within the city, and another 10 to 15 percent for people who are not even registered to vote.
So take ¼ plus 1/10 plus 1/10 and you have 45 percent fail, leaving only 9300 valid signatures and that is 1,000 short of the minimum needed.”
In fact, we came in with about 13,000 valid on the random check according to the city clerk. That hardly adds up to 20% failure either. We came in a little over 76% validity, and exactly where I knew we would be, since I checked each and every last signature myself against the ROV database. Pretty much standard turn in. We were not going for a special election. Had we been going for one, we would have turned in way way more signatures, but a million dollar special election is not in the best interest of the tax paying community of a city that is already struggling financially. We brought in enough signatures, at high enough validity to insure that the city would not be saddled with a $60,000 bill for a full check (That means that we had to know we were coming in well over 110% of sufficiency to avoid that burden. We came in at roughly 120%) The proponents, who knew the costs involved once explained chose to take the extra time and effort to see that the worst bill the city would be saddled with for the check would be a mere couple thousand dollars. This initiative is designed to be in the best interest of the tax paying community, not to push their agenda at any cost, and the proponents, volunteers and patients who worked so hard to accomplish this goal can wait a few extra months to bring this vote to the community. Thank you for your congratulations. Many people put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into getting this job done. Hundreds in fact. We all look forward to having a vibrant and informative discussion with you over the next 18 months about the benefits of this initiative.
Yes it looks like my guess was way off.
Now it will be up to the voters in Nov. 2014, and if it passes, then most likely the courts after that.
It wasn’t 300 that were thrown out all because of date misreadings like that. Some were thrown out for other reasons. Perhaps some even valid, but the dates on Jiro’s docs were a good example of why decisions like that are better left to the more qualified eyes at the Registrar’s office than to some deputized city clerk assistants.
It can’t be stressed enough, I just got the sigs, Kadnice did EVERYTHING ELSE. Kandice is a MMJ legend and a serious bad ass.bie
– Debbie
Debbie,
Vern said that he was going to contact you to get your response to my comment above.
“Santa Ana MMJ Petition Lies, distortions and falsehoods”
Will you respond to my comment above?
Debbie feels I gave her too much credit for this, although she did do all the hard physical work. Kandice Hawes, who “wrote the title and summary and gave up ten months of her life working on this, AND hired Debbie” will be along to deal with you. As soon as I get a hold of her.
Vern,
Yeah – well I won’t hold my breath waiting for Kandice to reply to my criticism of her MMJ petition. She got what she wanted – why should she be held to account for the lies and distortions that are in her petition.
For future reference, that list of alleged L&Ds is here.
I hope that she will take this chance to spar with you here — it’s good practice for the campaign. I don’t expect to be disappointed.
Skallywag, How can lies and distortions exist within the four corners of a written document that will be submitted to the electors for an up or down vote. To put this is simple terms, this is what the document says, do you want it or not? We have 15 months to debate the actual details of this issue. We may wind up agreeing to disagree, but I personally do not want to see sick patients suffer.
Debbie says: “How can lies and distortions exist within the four corners of a written document ..”
As counselor Greg Diamond (and any other thinking person) laughs his ass off hearing that – I am sure.
Debbie – I have explained the lies and distortions in the 4 corners of your document. You simply are trying to fool voters – that is clear from your reply to me.
I am asking for – but do not expect – a reply from either Debbie or Kandice – they are not truth tellers.
At this stage of the country wide, approved legalization of the ganja i.e. Colorado and Washington, the medical ganja in the California is an oxymoron and stagnation of the movement.
It was good idea 15 years ago.
NOT NOW!
These two women are heros what a huge job this was.
jose,
I am certain that they were paid very well for their hard work – there is a lot of money in pot.
Skallywag, I will not let an honorable discussion regarding the merits of this initiative break down into a series of ad hominem attacks. The proponents and volunteers who worked on this deserve better than for me to give any merit what-so-ever to and empty attacks, no matter the source. There is too much serious work to do.
I just want to say, debbie, that as a supporter of the initiative (barring my unexpectedly finding out something absolutely terrible about it) I think that skallywag is doing us all a great favor here by outlining the sorts of attacks that are likely to end up in people’s mailboxes. I don’t presume that his statements are true, but I do think that they will strike people as worth serious consideration. I understand why you would not want to respond to them off the cuff, but in time I hope that we might have some sort of online forum here in which whatever such attacks he makes can be addressed. He and I are very different politically, but I think that he knows that I’d try to be fair about drilling down to the core of disagreements like this. Let’s talk, Kandice included, about this in a few weeks, when I’ll have more free time. If you’re not interested, that’s fine too.
Ehh…shrugs. It’s a political mosh pit. Not much to do about someone calling you names but simply ignore it or have a good laugh at their expense. I mean come on here, we often deal with the same mentality that saw fliers of Obama’s face being pasted over a family of chimps. That sort of rhetoric does nothing but hurt the person who uses it. It’s there for one purpose only–entertainment value and a good laugh while you get back to the serious work at hand. I think most of the voters are well past actually letting tactics like that into their skulls however.
See, I told you they have no interest in discussing the issue or replying to my comments.
And thank you Jose. But the real credit goes to the volunteers that made this happen
Debbie said: “There was no hostility at all. when I explained the issue to people ..”
Did you lie to people like your petition gatherers who lied to my granddaughter and son-in-law? Your gatherer “explained” that the purpose of the petition was to keep dispensaries (pot shops) away from schools. You know that your petition does nothing more than state current CA state law in that regard – liars.
Why doesn’t enforcing proper limits the number of dispensaries (as is not yet done) by implementing a strict licensing &c regime serve the purpose of keeping unlicensed (but currently tolerated in fact) dispensaries away from schools? I suppose that we could argue over whether it would have that effect, but by calling them liars you’re suggesting that they themselves don’t believe that it is a (and perhaps even “the”) prime “purpose” of the initiative. Making dispensaries safe, legal, inoffensive, well-regulated, etc. — of which “keep them away from kids” is part — is a perfectly valid (and in my opinion compelling) interest of the pro-dispensary forces. Are they really “lying” there?
“Are they really “lying” there?” – I will give you some time to un-twist yourself from that convoluted argument diamond.
Absolutely they are lying!
That part of state law is already strictly enforced – because it is state law.
So your contention is that what Debbie references here …
… is not happening in Santa Ana? Just trying to get to the bottom of things. It seems likely to be testable.
And if their initiative passes it is STILL going to happen.
There are NO dispensaries within the state mandated limit – that is a red herring and another lie.
A couple of serious questions that maybe Debbie or someone else in the “know” will answer:
1. How many Med Dispensaries are currently in the City (approx +/-)?
2. Will Med Dispensaries be required to have adequate parking? I think this one has to do with the zoning issues as I don’t see anything specific in the proposed language.
3. Is there anything to stop a pod of dispensaries lumped together instead of spread across the city?
4. Will Med Dispensaries allow consumption of MMJ on premise? (I see the public right of way prohibition but I don’t see anything about on premise consumption).
5. 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.
6. 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?
7. 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…
8. 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?
Boutwell…a SA Voter.
Sorry, I put my answer to you at the bottom instead of as a reply to your specific question so I cut and pasted it here so it doesn’t get lost.
ok, starting with the last question first botwell; “8. 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?”
It can only be removed from the ordinance by the people:
SECTION 7 INITIATIVE NOT TO BE AMENDED OTHER THAN BY VOTERS
This initiative ordinance and evel}’ part thereof can only be amended by the Voters of the City of Santa Ana and cannot be amended by the Santa Ana City Council except as specifically provided above.
I am not sure that the people would want to remove it however, as leeway can be a bit more reasonable sometimes than hard absolutes. I find it very highly unlikely that the city will choose to allow more than the stated minimum of 22 collectives, but this gives solid guidelines.
These questions would make a great article.
See below also…I withdraw Q7 above- Sec 18-612 clearly indicates that the 22 minimum is only if there are that many eligible applicants.
Another problem is the 2% special city tax on the pot.
State law requires that any city passed tax must have 2/3 council approval and 2/3 voter approval. What happens if the measure passes, but without 2/3rds – does the measure go into effect without the bribe – I mean sales tax. PERFECT for the dispensaries – not so perfect for the City.
It may even be illegal for the City to put the petition on the ballot, due to the sales tax in it, without a 2/3 vote of the council.
Skallywag…I stopped reading your diatribe when you used the word bribe. I’ll address you when you stick to the facts.
Okay then – my inquiry is cleaned up according to your specifications:
Another problem is the 2% special city tax on the pot.
State law requires that any city passed tax must have 2/3 council approval and 2/3 voter approval. What happens if the measure passes, but without 2/3rds – does the measure go into effect without the sales tax? PERFECT for the dispensaries – not so perfect for the City.
It may even be illegal for the City to put the petition on the ballot, due to the sales tax in it, without a 2/3 vote of the council.
“State law requires that any city passed tax must have 2/3 council approval and 2/3 voter approval.”
Really?
Yeah, that’s screwy.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Required_approval_rates_for_local_California_ballot_measures
Unless the proposed tax has a dedicated use, it’s a simple voter majority.
Skallywag, you want to throw out ad hominem attacks such as calling the hard working proponents and volunteers of this initiative liars, and you want to whimper and whine about an ordinance that reinforces the reasonable setbacks created by state law to keep a distance from your granddaughter’s school. These collective check letters of recommendation and id at the door. Why don’t you spend your time shutting down the half dozen or so drug houses at every corner where they don’t check ID and dispense Ecstasy Oxycontin cocaine heroine and meth to school age children? I think my time is spent better arguing the salient points that rolling in the gutter.
“.. you want to whimper and whine about an ordinance that reinforces the reasonable setbacks created by state law to keep a distance from your granddaughter’s school.”
Tell me Debbie – specifically, other than by a restatement of existing state law – in what manner does the SA initiative reinforce state law regarding the distance requirement of dispensaries from schools?
botwell, i’m working on the answers to your questions. gimme a min please
Let me help you reply to boutwell Debbie –
“3. Is there anything to stop a pod of dispensaries lumped together instead of spread across the city?”
In the initiative dispensaries are restricted to Zones by Code (commercial, industrial, etc.) – but other than that there are no other restrictions as to locality. As many dispensaries as they want in any area of the City by Zone Code is the rule in her initiative.
No problem Debbie…I would rather wait for good thought out answers than off the cuff response.
You know, we’re sort of making some progress here! Score one for the agora of the mosh pit.
i am now so very confused….i thought all you liberal hippie counter culture progressive types wanted a pot stand on every street corner. and now that you are close to getting it, you are beating up on the women who are going to make it happen. and why are you picking on birkenstock wearing, non leg shaving women…isn’t that against the rules
If you think that skallyway is a “liberal hippie counter culture progressive type,” then you are even more confused than you think you are. I’m happy with Debbie’s accomplishment here, but I am willing to listen to skally’s criticisms.
thanks boutwell. these are well thought questions so i have to answer them one at a time. first one’s easy, about 45 at the last count? but the next ones I’m trying to cut and paste the verbiage of the initiative. may take me a bit cause my son. just got home from school with a 103 degree fever. lol, looks like it’s flu time again.
ok, starting with the last question first botwell; “8. 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?”
It can only be removed from the ordinance by the people:
SECTION 7 INITIATIVE NOT TO BE AMENDED OTHER THAN BY VOTERS
This initiative ordinance and evel}’ part thereof can only be amended by the Voters of the City of Santa Ana and cannot be amended by the Santa Ana City Council except as specifically provided above.
I am not sure that the people would want to remove it however, as leeway can be a bit more reasonable sometimes than hard absolutes. I find it very highly unlikely that the city will choose to allow more than the stated minimum of 22 collectives, but this gives solid guidelines.
These questions would make a great article.
Thanks Debbie…that is not exactly what I meant by changing the ordinance. I understand that once passed, it can’t be changed (other than as indicated by the ordinance). I was more asking if the organizers of the ordinance would be willing to remove the increase beyond the 1 per 15K by City Council approval. It seems that it could be a hang up for some (somewhat for me too).
I look forward to further responses whether on this string or as a stand alone article as Vern has suggested.
I don’t understand your question boutwell – could you restate?
Can the language of the ordinance be changed prior to the Nov 14 vote? For example, remove the “at least” from Sec 18-613.
No – the laguage cannot be changed. Citizens signed the petition with the original language. To change the language would require a new petition & petition drive.
Okay – BOUTWELL. (and to a lesser degree Skallywag)
Your questions (and maybe a couple of Skally’s) are worth their own article in response. Debbie will write it, along with the measure’s author Kandice (whenever she gets home from work or school or wherever she is.)
We’ll have it up by Monday at the latest. If you think of any other good questions, add ’em on here. This will be a great opportunity to get all the BS out of the way and go into 2014 un-confused.
Vern – What do you mean “to a lesser degree skallywag” – I am the one answering boutwell’s questions – you don’t see Debbie doin’ that now. dickface …..
Where’s Guy Fawkes when ya need him?
When THAT Indian gets pissed off at you, he stays pissed off forever. (tried to contact him a couple months ago, crickets…)
Here is the language which “limits” the number of collectives in the City – Sec. 18-612 (page 6).
“At least 1 medical cannibis 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 – no where does it say “no more than” or “shall not exceed.” The “formula” is intentionally bogus. I would like the opinion of the OJB counselor on this so-called “limiting” language. I call to the witness stand the esteemed and lawfully licensed attorney Mr. Greg Diamond.
Mr. Diamond, regarding the so-called “limiting” language of the subject initiative. Would you kindly give us your opinion as to whether or not the claimed “limiting language” relating to a supposed maximum number of collectives to be located in the City is, in fact, so limiting? Thank you sir.
Uhh, I’m no legal expert, but doesn’t “at least” in this context mean something like “there’s no such thing as HALF a collective”?? So 1 out of 15,000 is the maximum…because 1 is the least you can have per 15,000 to have something.
Yeah, makes sense to me.
No – try something else. We don’t have idiots here in the City of Santa Ana that would imagine “1/2 a collective.” … what have you been smokin’??
You REALLY need to lighten up. I have an idea on what might help with that.
I have my means of lightening up anon and it doesn’t involve a weed that smells like shit. And I will not lighten up over this issue – I live in Santa Ana in a neighborhood which is impacted by these pot shops.
I don’t want drug dealers running the City of Santa Ana. No, I will not lighten up nor will I “light up” concerning this issue
“Drug dealers” — such a delightfully flexible term. Does that include doctor’s associations, Big Pharma, alcohol and soda (caffeine) vendors, and Big Tobacco?
I think that you undermine the legitimate opposition to drug use by lumping those with a concern about palliative use of cannabis per Prop 215 with Scarface and the Medellin cartel. Surely you see a difference there — right?
“Mr. Diamond doesn’t live here any more, Mrs. Torrance.”
Seriously — trial prep. Fascinated, want to see the discussion happen, can’t let myself be sucked into it too deeply for the next couple of weeks.
I am also no attorney, but I do work with a lot of contracts and legal language. The “at least” is obviously not the limiting language. At first read, I also though it was a bogus limitation- kind of like saying that the entire store is “up to 90% off”. I wish the authors of the ordinance would have removed the “at least” if there intention was to only have 1 per 15 which is why I even ask the question- why would it be in there if it was not their intention to use the “at least” language?
The implied limiting language is in the following sentence in the same section: “The City Council may increase, but not decrease, the number of medical cannabis collectives registered in the City under the formula above which shall be the maximum number registered unless raised by the City Council.”
The limiting language is “the formula above which shall be the maximum number registered”. This puts the maximum dispensaries at the 1 per 15. One definitely could argue, I am arguing with myself actually, that the 1 per 15 is not the entire “formula” though…the entire formula is the “at least” 1 per 15. However, since that formula does not have a mathematical maximum, then a reasonable reader I believe would imply that the actual intent is that the formula only includes 1 per 15. Thereby leaving one to ask, why is the “at least” in there? Poor wording? Leftover language from a prior draft prior to the 22 minimum? Intent to deceive? My vote is that it is poorly worded and possibly from a prior draft of the ordinance.
This is a key section of the ordinance though IMO. If the intent was 1 per 15 with a minimum of 22 unless otherwise increased by CC, then they should have said as such. The “at least” language should have been removed in order to leave no doubt as to the intent. Especially, when 20 years down the line people are interpreting it in their own way.
Can the authors of the ordinance submit updated language for the ordinance prior to voting? I don’t know if this is possible or if it requires a separate qualification by signatures, etc…
Debbie, hopefully you can see the literal reading of that section leaves ambiguity which would be great for you (or someone else) to address.
No problem Mr. D – my query will wait. We have lots of time before this would go to the voters. Besides, there are so many holes in this initiative that the City should be able to blow it out of the water in their own sweet time.
Lots of banter back and forth on details. You should work on your ballot arguments instead.
The only count that manners now is the vote count in Nov. 2014
Yeah you’re right cook – they don’t need to respond to legitimate questions regarding their petitions. It would be pretty dumb of them if they did. They need to concentrate their efforts from this point forward on fooling gullible voters.
*Tianamen Square? “OK, the smoking lamp is lit……roll ’em and smoke ’em if you’ve
got ’em!” OK, all you guys are now under arrest!
Is there indeed a medical need to get stoned? Drink too much alcohol? Take too
many prescription drugs? Act like Lindsay Lohan?
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.
“Surely you see a difference (between Scarface and the Medellin cartel and the dipensaries) — right?”
No, not much difference if the initiative passes – same, same. The dispensaries will be running the City of Santa Ana – didn’t you read my original comment on this post?
I think that you need to recombobulate yourself for a while.
mr. skallywag,
Is it your opinion that there is never any medical benefit from the use of cannabis sativa or cannabis indica?
If a collective were to open up in a CVS or other “prescription” drug store would you be ok with that?
Is it your opinion that the govt has a right to tell you what you can or cannot put into your own body, good, bad or otherwise?
I assume from your previous opinions here, that you also would agree that the Food and Drug Administration has every right to decide 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 reasonable scientific research.
If these aren’t the reasons you are so vehement about, keeping cannabis off the open legal market, would please explain why. I really would like to know why. I know you must have some really good reasons but, so far, you haven’t, to the best of my knowledge, explained that.
Are you ok with someone growing it themselves, for their personal use, not for sale, IF they have a real medical need and recommendation?
Real questions skallywag, I hope that you consider them as such and answer them thoughtfully and honestly.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
“I have always been a very basic believer in the rules. If you know the rules you can play the game. Life follows just like games, there are cheaters and those who play by the rules. Those who play by the rules should have the opportunity to succeed and win, those who cheat should be punished or tossed out of the game. There is logic and truth in the way this country was formed. The rules need to be adhered to, for they have been lost over time.”
I agree Alex – You will get my reply – and I do apprciate your well thought out questions.
mr. skallywag,
Thank you.
I do agree with you about the rules.
The exception to that, should be when the rules themselves are corrupt and based on lies or the game is so fundamentally flawed that the rules need to be changed and can’t seem to be. At least for me.
I appreciate your thoughtful deliberation and await your response.
Alex – Here is my reply:
Is it your opinion that there is never any medical benefit from the use of cannabis sativa or cannabis indica?
According to the Federal Government: “The drug has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”
However, I don’t necessarily agree with the Feds. I have heard enough testimony that genuinely and seriously sick people feel that it helps them – I tend to believe that they believe.
If a collective were to open up in a CVS or other “prescription” drug store would you be ok with that?
I am not down with collectives – too much opportunity for abuse, as with this proposed pot ordinance.
Is it your opinion that the govt has a right to tell you what you can or cannot put into your own body, good, bad or otherwise?
Yes – too a very limited extent – and that may or may not include pot (depending on reasonable regulation) – IMO.
I assume from your previous opinions here, that you also would agree that the Food and Drug Administration has every right to decide 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 reasonable scientific research.
That sounds bogus to me – I say “test away.”
If these aren’t the reasons you are so vehement about, keeping cannabis off the open legal market, (I never said that) would please explain why. I really would like to know why. I know you must have some really good reasons but, so far, you haven’t, to the best of my knowledge, explained that. (That is because no one has asked me, until now.)
That “regulate like wine” thing sounds kind of okay to me – but I think that it should also be “regulated like guns & (smokes)” – okay in your own house – but no “open carry (use).”
Are you ok with someone growing it themselves, for their personal use, not for sale, IF they have a real medical need and recommendation?
Yes.
Real questions skallywag, I hope that you consider them as such and answer them thoughtfully and honestly.
I think that I did.
I will throw my unsolicited responses to Alex’s questions also:
Med Benefits- it sure seems that there are legit benefits to it.
CVS- I would much much rather see the MMJ in a regular pharmacy…if it is a legit prescription drug, then lets treat it like one. I would also like to see the prescription process the same as other prescriptions (see my post asking a yet as to un-responded to question about original intent of Prop 215). For example, having to have a MD prescribe it and monitor the progress of the ailment along with relatively short term expiration of prescriptions. IMO, if we want it to be a prescription drug, then we should treat it as such.
Gov’t Rights- In general, I feel that the gov’t should try to limit what they tell us we can and can’t do when we are the only ones we harm. However, there are times when oversight is beneficial for the community at large. Rarely, is the one whose body has a substance introduced to it the only body that is impacted.
FDA- Scientific research should be performed- absolutely. Peer reviewed, published, scrutinized, celebrated and the entire deal.
Self Growing- I am conflicted on this one a bit. On one hand, I think we should treat it like any other prescription drug which means that you cannot self-manufacture it. I presume that I cannot legally manufacture and self consume a prescription drug, but I may be wrong- i think the FDA regulates it. On the other hand, if it is purely for self consumption and under the orders of a prescription, I can see why it should be allowed. Since it is a prescription medication, the grower maybe should have to have some major safeguards in place to ensure the safety of the product though just as the manufacturers and sellers (pharmacies/doctors/hospitals) of other medications do…something to decrease the likelihood of someone using it for other than legitimate purposes. I know that may be a little too far, but something to secure the medicine if one is going to take it on as a manufacturer.
Overall, if there is are legitimate medical purposes (not doubting that there is, at all), then let’s treat it like other prescription medicines. Maybe a little looser, but hopefully down that road.
Alex – “My” statement about the rules is actually your statement – word for word – from the old Sunny D blog.
Thank you Skallywag!
I don’t have time right now to properly respond in detail, but will later this evening.
I do appreciate your honesty and thoughtful responses.
😉 long memory you got there my friend.
I think this is very important and I do want to find some way to make you and others more comfortable with some sort of sane and reasonable use and regulation that makes sense and gives those who really need help some support.
not a long memory – just googled your “name” and orange county – & that is what came up.