Do We Really Want All Patients Growing Medical Marijuana In Their Homes?

[trix]

Los Angeles Considers Where Medical Marijuana Should Be Obtained

 

 

 

 

By Aaron Lachant

On Friday, the Public Safety Committee of the Los Angeles City Council considered where medical marijuana patients should obtain their medicine. In particular, they looked at two competing proposals that regulate medical marijuana in two very different ways. Under the first proposal, Councilmember José Huizar’s “gentle ban,” all medical marijuana storefronts are prohibited, but patients may associate in groups of three to grow marijuana in a “dwelling unit,” i.e. a home, condo, or apartment. Alternatively, under Councilmember Paul Koretz’s “limited immunity,” around one hundred medical marijuana collectives may continue operating so long as they comply with zoning restrictions and other conditions of operation. This piece looks at both proposals and the current challenges facing the City Council in regulating medical marijuana.

Councilmember Huizar’s gentle ban ignores the needs of the city’s residents. Spastically, the ban’s home cultivation mandate contradicts with what the City Attorney has argued for years, namely, that the city’s residents do not want medical marijuana in their neighborhoods. However, if enacted, the gentle ban would place marijuana deeper in neighborhoods than ever before. For example, under the gentle ban, every medical marijuana patient would be forced to cultivate marijuana in a residential dwelling, even if the patient lacked the knowledge or ability to cultivate marijuana safely. It seems to me that having amateurs cultivating with high wattage bulbs in residential areas will expose neighborhoods to an entirely new and different set of dangerous risks, including electrical fires.

In contrast, Councilmember Koretz’s proposal strikes a balance between the needs of the city’s residents and the medical marijuana patients. Under the Koretz proposal, the City can protect neighborhoods, while maintaining safe access for patients, by imposing conditions to ensure a limited number of collectives operate safely. These conditions, which will reduce the overall numbers, will move collectives away from neighborhoods and other sensitive uses, such that neighborhoods will no longer be troubled by the secondary effects of marijuana cultivation. The gentle ban, on the other hand, has no such zoning requirement and in fact allows marijuana cultivation in every residential dwelling unit citywide. Given that a single marijuana plant is worth thousands of dollars on the out-of-state black market, it begs the question as to whether such a commodity should be located in the homes on every residential street citywide.

From a policy standpoint, the gentle ban is quite contrary to how local governments have regulated similar nuisance land uses for many decades. For example, in the context of liquor stores, the law does not mandate that people distill their own alcohol for personal consumption. Likewise, the law does not force adults to associate in their own homes, in groups no bigger than three, in order to view exotic dancing or pornographic videos. In each of the cases, the local government was able to establish appropriate regulations and limit the quantity and locations of such establishments. Indeed, in hindsight, a gentle ban seems like an absurd means of regulation under any of those circumstances because responsible ordinances have amply resolved the harms associated with those uses.

The state of medical marijuana in the City of Los Angeles is quite complex and will not be fixed overnight. In the meantime though, the City Council should take proactive steps to reduce the number of illegal dispensaries while debating these two proposals. For example, the Office of Finance could stop issuing Business Tax Registration Certificates to newly formed medical marijuana collectives. Perhaps the act of issuing business licenses encourages people to establish medical marijuana collectives under the mistaken belief they are doing so legally. Maybe a few months after the stoppage, the City might begin to see the fruits of its multi-million dollar enforcement effort to shut down collectives. What good is shutting down one collective if the City issues business licenses to a dozen new ones?

Like it or not, medical marijuana is here to stay. The California Legislature has provided all California residents with the right to cultivate medical marijuana collectively and cooperatively, and the people of Los Angeles have embraced that right. However, as the largest city in the State of California, the Los Angeles City Council should be looking at new and innovative ways to regulate medical marijuana responsibly, not to shutter it out of existence. Until the City Council enacts a law that regulates medical marijuana appropriately, the state of medical marijuana in Los Angeles will not improve, and both the patients and residents will continue to suffer.

About Aaron C. Lachant

Aaron joined the firm as an associate in 2008 and he focuses his practice on representing providers in all aspects of healthcare law, including compliance with government-sponsored healthcare programs, Medicare/Medi-Cal recovery audits, administrative hearings, and civil litigation. He is a member of the State Bar of California Health Law Section and Health Care Compliance Association.

Aaron received his Juris Doctor, as well as a Certificate of Advanced Study in Health Services Management and Policy from Syracuse University in 2008. In law school, he was a member of the Health Law Society and participated in an international seminar on comparative health law and policy. During his third year, he completed an independent comparative research study on the Constitutional issues surrounding a patient’s right to die. Aaron earned his Bachelor of Arts in Communications and Rhetorical Studies from Syracuse University in 2005. Prior to joining the firm, Aaron clerked for the New York State Supreme Court 5th Judicial District.

Source:

http://www.theweedblog.com/do-we-really-want-all-patients-growing-medical-marijuana-in-their-homes/

Trix

[Kingpinn]

Yes we do. More the merrier. 12 Plants in every home . AMEN Brother. Growing in the eve troughs. Why let someone else have all the fun and profit ???I dont believe grown adults want to be told where they can go and what to do. Being treated like children

Edited June 10, 2012 by Kingpinn

[Croppled1]

They always need to think first when making laws of the sub group of patients whom often are homebound unable to participate in co-op grows , move about freely , and totally and permenently disabled thus financially constrained . Eventually all severe chronic and terminal patients will fall into this segment . Hopefully one day their will be safe places of support in every community with social interaction and access to obtain and even use cannabis in addition to ones homes and back alley's . Regardless home growing is a necessity the sick and deing on limited incomes require .

 

Growing ones own comfort is a great motivator , hobby , and exercise for patients . I know it has physically benefited many involved more then anyone is giving credit for . There was a fire in Detroit sadly ( non medical cannabis related ) but the press has been telling individuals who cannot afford smoke detectors local fire departments will often help provide them for free for the truly needy so there is no excuse not to have them . I have more then one on every level of my home with a exit plan and meeting place for everyone outside ;-) . After three years experimenting I have pretty much settled in using 1100 - 1800 watts combined ( adj ballasts seasonal ) for veg and flower as a non caregiver patient only with high use requirements . I am always interested in how to reduce energy consumption . My only thoughts now would be working for reform so more storage was possible so perpetual grows wouldn't be a cause and effect requirement of regulation . Many patients just can't peform all the weighings that are required almost daily either or guess what dried weight of plants will be with limits so tight . Patients who are struggling with activity and suffering truly fear not having a non interupted supply in decline . It can mean going through periods where your struggling to get to your feet , bed or chairbound for the most part of days and suffering then unbearabley without a substance that can give both mental and physical comfort - when there is no need for it to occur except what we have created through regulation .

Edited June 10, 2012 by Croppled1

[Mememe]

Many of my neighbors have bare 250W infrared bulbs hanging in their chicken coops full of straw, how is an enclosed HID MORE dangerous than that legally allowed setup?

[AmishRnot4ganja]

Many of my neighbors have bare 250W infrared bulbs hanging in their chicken coops full of straw, how is an enclosed HID MORE dangerous than that legally allowed setup?

 

 

Exactly. I think this is just another attempt by the prohibitionists to restrict cannabis. Every time one of their "new concerns" gets shown to be frivolous, they have to go out and dream up another "concern". Eventually they will run out of ideas.

[Fat Freddy]

Some 20 years ago I had the pleasure of visiting L.A. It was a crowded place. Esp in the city proper.

I can see concerns about apartment buildings or town housing. However I do not see any issues with private dwellings.

One of the issues they could be looking at is building codes to address any electrical fire concerns. But that is just a guess at what they could be looking at.