I tried to, but the Patch editor, was deleting my posts and forcing me off. Apparently my words are making an impact on the psychology of the Eagle Rock editors in kahootz with a certain Eagle Rock Neighborhood Watch/Council member who is anti-dispensary---and most likely because I debated his misinformation with undeniable truths in past eagle rock marijuana articles.

Qualified patients and their caregivers growing and sharing marijuana to be used for pain reduction and other maladies is PERFECTLY LEGAL in California. The problem is, that's not what we are talking about here.

We are talking about the likely involvement of organized crime in the storefront selling of a powerful drug with no regulation, oversight or enforcement.

That's the problem Huizar is trying to address. He is absolutely in favor of qualified patients having access safe and dignified to medical marijuana (as is the ERNC), but he understands, as anyone who looks at the situation objectively, that the system has been hijacked, and it's time for some responsible action.
The Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council supports Mr. Huizar and his motion to bring some responsibility back to Los Angeles, and do the right thing on this issue.

Michael I believe the hijacking you describe is what this motion stands to achieve. At best it monopolize the power and money into the city, it's officials pockets and agendas. Organized crime comes in many forms this motion just shifts the power. To think that the proposed 'certified caregivers' are not affiliated with powerful organizations is an illusion.

Kelly, I see you have brought up this idea in several posts. Can you elaborate a little and describe what the mechanism is for your assertion that the City somehow wants to monopolize MMJ distribution and profits for the benefit of City Officials?
How will this work exactly?

If there can only be 100 chiroparactors in the city, 100 denstists, 100 lawyers, 100 liquor stores, 100 barber shops, 100 taco trucks and the city councilmen decide what process to use to pick those 100 is there a possibility that many would want to influence the council members decision with campaign contributions, job offers for relatives, free services etc? Nah. That would never happen.

Marino, The last mechanism to choose the 100 was a random drawing of pre-qualified shops, but that was fought against by the shops and later struck down by a judge. Can you think of more fair and unbiased way of choosing?

Random & prequalified is not random.
The obvious answer is to not place limits just like there are no hard limits on the businesses I enumerated above . Let the market decide.
You can't complain on one hand that each one of the local 10 stores generates too much traffic and then advocate on the other hand that there should only be one store to handle 10 times the traffic. It's hypocritical.

Marino, all of the businesses you mention have stringent regulatory controls on them by multiple levels of government. Pot shops have no regulation whatsoever. If you believe that there is regulation, please point to it. I can't find it.
If you're saying that you would be in favor of the shops having the same kind of regulation as liquor stores, for example, then we would have a starting point for agreement, but until that similar regulation can be put in place, I think they should close.

Thank you Marino for explaining a monopoly. I think if you just take the basic principles of monopoly and apply it to this motion you can see the connection. I would have to ask you the same question to produce documents that prove the clinics are getting their supply from who is it you say? The Mexican drug cartels, or organized crime, gangs or who ever you say it is. I can personally attest that one of the suppliers for our local clinic is my neighbor. He grows his 6 plants and sells the excess to the clinic. I see no problem with that. I also have no problem closing my windows when the skunk aroma lofts into my home, really a simple solution and no big deal. I have heard that the few main larger 'local' growers that used to supply the city before it was decriminalized supply the majority of the clinics now. Only rumor of course. But do you think Huizar is going to make sure the 'certified clinics' get their supply from several small local growers. I truly believe this is where you will cut out the small guy and play into the bigger more 'organized' suppliers. Again no proof or documentation but I don't think you have documentation to prove where you say you think the supply is coming from. I think I've said all I care to on this. I truly hope that everyone can see the difference between Huizars motion and money, politics, community improvement and individual clinics that need to adjust their behavior.

Sorry - This is from the LA Times online letters in the article about Huizar's motion.

In any case, the only answer to failed prohibition is regulation and taxation to moderate possible - as yet unproven in the case of the clinics - social costs, so called Pigouvian taxes. Prohibition, or in this case re-prohibition - whether for "illicit" sex, swearing, drinking, marijuana, or any other of Mr. Larsen's documented passions - has never worked, and will not work now.

The embarrassing thing for me, since Jose Huizar is my councilman, is that he is a smart guy with a Princeton graduate degree in policy, and knows this full well, yet still endorses this kind of rhetoric. I'm sure as an attorney he also knows the end result will be more crime, more drug deals in the park, more medical marijuana patients exposed to real crime and real gangs, and more lawsuits and legal costs for the city.

Really, embarrassing is the only word.

I like to look at the parallels between alcohol and marijuana prohibition. Legalized marijuana over time will weed out the criminals as well as any industry can. The demand for marijuana is there, so there will be a supply. I'm hopeful that we can setup reasonable regulations to get the criminals out of the picture over the long term.

We also know prohibition of alcohol did not work, and if we learn from history, we will realize prohibition of MJ doesn't work. Plus, MJ is a far less dangerous drug than alcohol. An argument for MJ prohibition should include an argument for alcohol prohibition otherwise people are just being hypocritical.

Ok the cartels are NOT running the dispensaries. One of the dumbest arguments so far. Leave the dispensaries be. As a prior chemo patient my life would not have been the same without medical marijuana. Yes there are people that get it that don't need it, but hey, its being taxed so who cares. More people die from alcohol, not weed. So sick of this argument. The law is there, they need to lay off

bbkong, thanks for the FYI.
Now please give us all a little more info.
Please let us know where we can access the documentation that the pot the shops are selling is "high quality stuff that has been grown locally and professionally".
Please show us exactly where it's grown; the meticulous, professional standards that are followed to ensure the health and safety of the seriously ill cancer patients using it; the protections against organized crime being involved, who is responsible for overseeing the industry, etc.

Please clue us in since you seem to have the facts and info.

I tend to rely on things like official letters from the top law enforcement officer of State of California, Kamala Harris, who says she is "troubled by the exploitation of California's medical marijuana laws by gangs, criminal enterprises and others."

The price of medical marijuana has plummeted, and the quality has dramatically improved since it was legalized. This was both predictable based on competition and legal, local sourcing, and observable even to occasional clinic users like me.

There is an issue of clinics needing appropriate regulation and oversight, as Kamela Harris recognizes, but the answer is not to push medical marijuana patients back into the shadows, and actually increase illegal drug sales and their associated problems. Including, no doubt, street-level sales. That's why Jose Huizar's motion is an act of political cowardice all but guaranteed to increase crime, and that definitely will increase the city's legal bills - for no discernible reason - until the statewide legal issues are settled. This LA Times Editorial covers much the same ground: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-marijuana-20120104,0,2171968.story

By the way, Michael, where is your evidence that clinics are run by Mexican Cartels and create crime? As far as the latter, surely you know about the RAND study, withdrawn under political pressure, that claimed just the opposite? And what about all the business, jobs and taxes medical marijuana patients generate, not only for the clinics, but for other businesses up and down Colorado?

OK, I stand corrected. Maybe you can go with Huizar-Humor. Here are some possible recent headlines:

"Huizar Encourages Marijuana Sales In Parks, Back Alleys."

"Northeast LA Gangs Set To Create Nearly 100 Entry-Level Jobs If Huizar Motion Passes."

"Huizar Motion Outsources Hundreds Of American Jobs To Mexico."

"Huizar Says No To Medical Marijuana, Yes To Gangs."

Patricia, I have great respect for you and I credit Swork as the shop that started the new Eagle Rock. Also back then TERA helped small businesses like yours to open, instead of putting up nimbyist roadblocks like ERNC does now . So I'm a little perplexed with your objections. Outside of the Eagle Rock Mall and the block where Swork is located I don't know of any commercial area that's not within 150ft of houses or next door to another business. And since when a business does not want human traffic near their business? As for the parking situation again outside the Eagle Rock Mall and that hideous strip mall on Argus & Colorado I don't know any business in Eagle Rock that has adequate parking. Is that what we want for Eagle Rock? Strip malls and businesses that don't see more than one customer an hour? Swork would have never opened. We wouldn't have Coffetable, CaCao Mexicatessen, Cafe Beaujolais and many of the places that make Eagle Rock special. Beware what you wish for.
Maybe Medical Marijuana should be sold at pharmacies like Rite Aid and CVS or government stores like they sell liquor in some states back east, I don't really know. I know that prohibition is not the solution and I know that chasing small businesses away under the cover of traffic, parking etc leads us only towards the suburban model. The houses are "here", the businesses are "there" and you need to drive your car to go from one to the other. I honestly don't think that's what the community wants.

Are you ever able to get local law enforcement to visit your area when people are loitering and possibly making illegal deals? Regardless of the debate, it would be great to see law enforcement setup a stronger presence in areas of trouble (regardless of the businesses involved. I've heard in San Diego during the summer, the police setup a mobile office at several beach locations that bring in folks looking for trouble. It is my understanding that much like a liquor stores, people are not allowed to loiter and consume the product. I believe that is true for dispensaries as well. I do think these types of problems will lessen as MJ becomes legal. Anyway, I am truly sorry you are experiencing those issues in your community. Did they occur before the dispensaries were there?

Here's a great video featuring some of the finest ER pot shops including American Eagle Collective (AEC), the illegal shop that Patricia is talking about: http://www.kcet.org/shows/socal_connected/content/politics/reefer-madness-11021020112.html

No traffic. No trash. No reselling, No parking in driveways. No gangsters. No Mexican cartels. No evidence at all.

Just old Larsen PR - inviting in the Feds! Maybe the feds can also prevent swearing and beer-drinking in Yosemite Park? And run stings to detect "Illegal" massage parlors?

Really, the feds are a great solution for alleged parking and traffic problems on College View, Michael! Way to have a sense of scale and your own relevance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlA8rwpC-TY

So what's that I hear about the cartel? There are HOMELESS people (including female and elderly) STARVING on every other block in Eagle Rock and Huizar and his boy wonder-Michael Larsen can stop talking about trivial statistics on pot shots?
HELLOOOO??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlA8rwpC-TY

You clearly enjoy having a go at anyone who doesn't agree with you and that is fine. So ill entertain you for a moment. The street in question is actually College View, not Colorado. And as far as the police doing their job, a urination and an illegal u-turn aren't top police priorities, and I know that, thus response times and attention to the act is low priority. However they are a huge neighborhood annoyance day after day. My question to you is why do you always take the side of everything MMD? Are businesses suppose to act with complete recklessness to their neighbors, MMD or otherwise? Common sense would dictate that acting out where people live is just poor judgement. Why would you be an advocate of such behavior? Or do you just like to argue for argument sake?
As for your far reaching stab at humor. We probably don't need a federal traffic police nor a parking police, just patients who are in need of some compassion, to actually have some compassion for others when they are picking up medication, much like they would do at a walgrens or CVS, nothing more.

I'm willing to accept Patricia's and Barry's word who live there that all the problem traffic and parking and public urination is coming from AEC customers. But that's the same problems that neighbors of Dodger Stadium complain about. Is anyone advocating banning baseball in all of Los Angeles except in the privacy of one's own backyard? Because that's what Jose Huizar and Michael Larsen are proposing.

This is not the first or the last time that some business or its customers will have an adverse impact on the immediate neighborhood. There are ways to address that other than wholesale ban of all the businesses of that type. Limit hours, permit parking, security etc.

As a landlord I pay a fee every year for the city to come and inspect me. We don't ban rental property cause some property owners are slumlords. In the film industry where I've worked for 20 years we pay city "monitors" to come and inspect us when we shoot on location, esp locations that have reported frequent complaints. We don't ban all location filming cause it has inconvenienced some.

As a society we have mechanisms to negotiate the coexistence of competing interests without abolishing one to satisfy the others.

I don't think anyone would advocate banning baseball due to complaints for the neighbors, but the Dodgers, trying to be good neighbors, might try to address the complaints, and the City may try to implement reasonable regulations to alleviate the issues.

It sounds like you are okay with reasonable regulations on MMDs. The problem is that the recent court decision (the Pack case) held that the City can't regulate MMDs. So what do you advocate in solving this problem? Should the City try to enforce its current regulations that were held invalid in the Pack case, and thereby lose on any legal challenges? That doesn't sound like a very fiscally prudent move. And if the City were to try to draft new regulations, it seems like the Pack case would dictate that those regulations are also invalid. That doesn't sound like a very fiscally prudent move. Do you have a solution?

I have read complaints from residents living near MMDs, and the response from MMD supporters is "prove it." Tim Ryder says that he hasn't seen anything or heard of anything from what he considers a reliable source, so he doesn't believe anything improper is occurring. Rather than attack the credibility of nearby residents and ignoring complaints, why don't the MMD supporters get together with Tim Ryder's group and the MMDs and try to find ways to resolve the complaints? A security guard in the parking lot or the front of an MMD doesn't seem like it solves the issues people have companied about.

@ Barry - I am sincerely sorry you experience some of the problems associated with living very near a busy commercial street. I am sure with the recent gentrification and development of Colorado Boulevard this has created a number of new nuisances, including those caused by loutish clinic customers. As others and I have pointed out, however, there are a number of remedies open to you before tarring all medical patients with one brush and banning all clinics, all across LA. This is extreme, and will have a huge negative effect on not only medical marijuana patients, but all residents as crime is pushed back into alleys and parks. And let's assume that "most" AEC medical marijuana patients are young, relatively healthy, young men, lots of them from Glendale - so what? How does this make criminalizing such people a good idea? Prohibition of marijuana is over in California, and its time to deal with the results.

Finally, I find it remarkable that the owner of Swork, a business with no street parking that no doubt creates plenty of parking and litter issues for its nearby residential neighbors, is criticizing a local business with off-street parking and a sign on the door urging customers not to park on the street. Really? (And, for further irony, look into the history of coffee and coffee houses. Sheeesh.)

Thanks for posting I did read that. I noticed he did not endorse this motion either. He also raises interesting points some that I noticed David shared earlier. Cheers!

Well this was in response to Robyns now deleted post! So it may seem strange to those of you who didn't read it before it was deleted. Oh well.

John, the so called "gentle" ban will hurt legitimate patients who are not able to grow their own medicine. The City Attorney has created draconian regulations which have been a disaster. People who push for this "gentle" ban are disingenuous at best as their contempt for cannabis is stronger then their respect for legitimate patients. Maybe Mr. Larsen will allow patients to grow in his garage. We will have to check with his first though. It appears that other neighborhood councils do not support this Draconian ban like the ERNC does http://goo.gl/UtCkA