Voters heading to the polls for Los Angeles’ Tuesday, May 21 ballot, and those who are using vote-by-mail ballots, have a choice between three ballot measures which aim to provide a regulatory framework for medical marijuana dispensaries in the city. Voters will also have an opportunity to vote on other offices in this General Municipal Election, including mayor, city attorney, and — in some districts — city council members.
Medical Marijuana Initiatives
Medical marijuana dispensaries in the state lack clear statewide guidelines. In Los Angeles, the city council approved a regulatory ordinance that was tied up in court until mid-2012 and that had expired by the time it was upheld. Later, the council tried to ban dispensaries. This Election Day, L.A. voters will have an opportunity to provide long-overdue recognition and regulations for dispensaries. Each of three ballot measures is designed to clarify the law.
Proposed Ordinances E and F are initiatives that were put on the ballot after petitioners collected voters’ signatures. The Los Angeles City Council presented its own version, Proposition D. All three are fairly similar and overlap in various ways, but the biggest points of difference among the measures are taxes, the total number of dispensaries allowed, and product testing requirements. It is possible that more than one measure will pass, but the measure with the most votes will prevail.
Proposition D
This measure has received the broadest support, which includes such groups as the United Farm and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW), Greater Los Angeles Collective Alliance (GLACA), and Americans for Safe Access (ASA). Proposition D was presented by the city council as a compromise between Ordinances E and F, below, and also receives support from both the mayoral and city attorney candidates in the race. It would significantly roll back the total number of dispensaries to their 2007 numbers, before a moratorium was put in place by the Los Angeles City Council. If adopted, it would:
- Limit the number of dispensaries to 135 and only those licensed before the 2007 moratorium, compared with the current number of approximately 1,700 facilities
- Increase city taxes on dispensaries to $60 for every $1,000 of gross earnings
- Not impose any testing requirements on marijuana sold
- Limit hours of operation to between 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
- Require that minors who enter must be accompanied by a parent or guardian
- Provide exemptions for grow operations for three or fewer caretakers and/or patients
The full text for Proposition D is available here.
Ordinance E
Ordinance E is very similar to Proposition D, and the original group that sought to put Ordinance E on the ballot, the Committee to Support Patients and Neighborhoods, has suspended its campaign for this proposed ordinance in favor of Proposition D. Unlike the other measures, however, Ordinance E does not include an increase in taxes for dispensaries. If passed, Ordinance E would:
- Limit the number of dispensaries to 135 and only those licensed before the 2007 moratorium
- Not increase city taxes on dispensaries
- Not impose any testing requirements on marijuana sold
- Limit hours of operation to between 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
- Require that minors who enter must be accompanied by a parent or guardian
- Exempt groups of five or fewer caregivers and/or patients who cultivate or process marijuana
The full text for Ordinance E is available here.
Ordinance F
This measure is backed by Angelenos for Safe Access Committee, consisting of dispensaries that would be forced to close if regulations rolled back the number to their pre-moratorium number in 2007. Unlike either Proposition D or Ordinance E, this measure does not cap the number of dispensaries and requires mandatory testing for marijuana products. If passed, Ordinance F would:
- Allow the market to decide the appropriate number of dispensaries, so long as they meet city standards
- Increase city taxes on dispensaries to $60 for every $1,000 of gross earnings
- Impose testing requirements for marijuana products sold
- Limit hours of operation to between 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
- Prohibit minors from entering the facilities
- Exempt all “residential collectives”
The full text for Ordinance F is available here.
City Candidates
As a service to voters, MPP used a mixture of votes on previous legislation and public comments to compile useful information on candidates for mayor, city attorney, and city council. If you have any information about candidates’ stances that we didn’t include, please let us know.
Mayoral Candidates
In January, the League of Women Voters sponsored a mayoral forum, during which the leading candidates discussed their plans for dealing with the proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles. Those comments and other information are compiled below.
Eric Garcetti: City Councilman Garcetti said he would try to maintain medical marijuana access while also limiting the number of dispensaries in Los Angeles. He also said he would urge state legislators to set regulations governing medical marijuana distribution in the state. Although Garcetti voted for the dispensary ban that overwhelmingly passed the city council, he supported the motion to allow the oldest dispensaries to stay open. Further, in a Huffington Post question and answer session related to L.A.'s most pressing issues, Garcetti commented on recreational marijuana use, saying: " ... If the voters of the state were for it, I'd be happy to regulate it like alcohol, especially to make it less easy for underage use and to make sure it isn't the Wild West situation we see in some neighborhoods."
Wendy Greuel: City Controller Gruel said she is “for compassion,” but she also supports tighter regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries: “There has been an unfortunate proliferation [of dispensaries] near schools and parks. We need to limit the number and provide safe access [to medical marijuana] with no harm to our communities.”
City Attorney Candidates
PBS recently hosted a debate, which included a question about medical marijuana dispensaries. You can watch the candidates discuss the issue here, beginning at 15:30. A short summary of the candidates' positions during the debate, along with other actions they have taken on the issue, is below.
Mike Feuer: Former Assemblyman Mike Feuer is not a die-hard opponent, but he has hardly been a champion of sensible policies either. Feuer voted against regulations for medical marijuana dispensaries (AB 2312, 2012) and against allowing prosecutors to charge marijuana as a misdemeanor instead of a felony (AB 1017, 2011). However, he did vote in favor of reclassifying marijuana possession as an infraction (SB 1449, 2010). He also supported a Senate resolution calling for an end to federal interference in state marijuana laws. During a radio debate with Trutanich, Feuer said Trutanich insisted on a restrictive medical marijuana dispensary ordinance because Truntanich "wanted to get rid of" dispensaries. Feuer said, "A balance should have been struck." During the PBS debate, Feuer said cancer patients and others need to have access to medical marijuana. He also made it clear he didn't think there should be "too many" dispensaries and expressed concern about some dispensaries being "unsafe."
Carmen Trutanich: For years, current City Attorney Carmen Trutanich strongly opposed medical marijuana access. Trutanich's office has argued — both in the press and in court — that over-the-counter sales of medical marijuana are illegal. At his urging, the city council passed a ban on medical marijuana dispensaries last year. The council later reversed itself and rescinded the ban, after advocates collected enough signatures for a referendum on the issue. With Election Day looming — and after failing to make the run-off in last year's district attorney race — Trutanich is now supporting an initiative to allow 100-180 medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles, and his campaign claims he’s always supported access. (That initiative and two others will be on the May 21 ballot, not the March 5 ballot.) During the PBS date, Trutanich criticized Feuer for failing to act when he was in the Assembly, including by failing to explicitly allow sales.
City Council, District 1
Jose Gardea: Mr. Gardea is not supportive of medical marijuana. At a community meeting, he stated, “As currently distributed, I'm against it.”
Gilbert Cedillo: As a former assemblyman and state senator, Cedillo has a strong record of voting for positive marijuana reform. Cedillo voted in favor of regulations for medical marijuana dispensaries (AB 2312, 2012). He also voted in favor of reclassifying marijuana possession as an infraction (SB 1449, 2010). In addition, in 2009, Cedillo voted in favor of a Senate resolution calling for an end to federal interference in state marijuana laws.
City Council, District 6 (special election)
Cindy Montañez: While in the Assembly, Montañez voted to allow medical marijuana collectives (SB 420, 2003).
Nury Martinez: We have no information on this candidate’s stances on marijuana policies.
Walter Escobar: We have no information on this candidate’s stances on marijuana policies.
J. Roy Garcia: We have no information on this candidate’s stances on marijuana policies.
Dan Stroncak: Candidate Stroncak posted a YouTube video on his website decrying the proliferation of dispensaries in his neighborhood, ignoring the liquor stores and pharmacies also present.
Richard Valdez: We have no information on this candidate’s stances on marijuana policies.
Derek Waleko: We have no information on this candidate’s stances on marijuana policies.
City Council, District 9
Ana Cubas: We have no information on this candidate’s stances on marijuana policies.
Sen. Curren Price: As a state senator, Price has a strong record of voting for positive marijuana reform. Price voted in favor of better recognition for medical marijuana dispensaries in the Senate Public Safety Committee (SB 1182, 2012). He also voted in favor of reclassifying marijuana possession as an infraction (SB 1449, 2010). In addition, in 2009, Price voted in favor of a Senate resolution calling for an end to federal interference in state marijuana laws.
City Council, District 13
Mitch O’Farrell: In an email to MPP's Sarah Lovering, Mr. O'Farrell's campaign said: "Mitch O'Farrell believes in safe, affordable access for people who depend on medical marijuana. He has a family member with debilitating migraine headaches who depends on it. Medical marijuana provides a lifeline for people who need it, helping to trigger the body's natural response to fight illness. Mitch strongly supports Proposition D, which will be placed on the May 21 ballot. The Paul Koretz compromise is sensible, well crafted, and will preserve badly needed access to people who depend on it while giving neighborhoods and the city the tools it needs to regulate dispensaries, something that has been lacking for years."
John Choi: We have no information on this candidate’s stances on marijuana policies.
