In reversal, Los Angeles City Council votes to ban marijuana shops

Jars full of medical marijuana are seen at Sunset Junction medical marijuana dispensary on May 11, 2010, in Los Angeles, California. / Getty Images

(AP) LOS ANGELES - The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday voted to ban marijuana shops outright until it has clearer guidance from the state's highest court, after being unable to rein in the hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries that have cropped up across the nation's second largest city.

The 13-1 vote drew an angry, profanity-laced response from some medical marijuana advocates who attended the council meeting.

If approved by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the storefront ban would go into effect after 30 days. The mayor's office did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment on the council vote.

In the interim, letters will be sent to as many as 900 dispensaries advising them of the ban.

The city has fumbled with its medical marijuana laws for years, trying to provide safe and affordable access to the drug for legitimate patients while addressing worries by neighborhood groups that streets were being overrun by dispensaries and marijuana users.

"Relief is on the way," said Councilman Jose Huizar, who introduced the so-called "gentle ban."

Poll: Half of CA voters oppose legalizing pot
Activist gives up Oaksterdam pot school
Feds raid Calif. marijuana university

Many cities have struggled with medical marijuana ordinances, but none has had a bigger problem than Los Angeles, where pot shops have proliferated. At one point, the city ordered closure of the shops - a process that failed amid lawsuits and conflicting rulings by appellate courts.

This time around the city has a stronger case if faced with lawsuits by pot shop owners, city officials said. A recent appellate court ruling seems to support the new ordinance that refers to a marijuana collective as three or fewer people.

The ban also allows hospices and home health agencies to provide medical marijuana.

The ban comes during a confusing time for Californians - despite voter approval in 1996 for medicinal use of marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. The state Supreme Court has decided to clarify marijuana's hazy legal status by addressing whether local governments can ban medical marijuana clinics. But a hearing has yet to be set by the high court.

Meanwhile, U.S. authorities have cracked down on pot clinics around the state, saying such operations remain illegal under federal law.

Los Angeles passed an ordinance two years ago that was supposed to shutter hundreds of pot dispensaries while capping the number in operation at 70. But a set of legal challenges against the city by collectives and last month's expiration of the ordinance thanks to a sundowner clause led to another surge of pot shops. City officials said 762 collectives have registered with the city and as many as 200 more could exist.

"We need to start with a clean slate," Councilman Mitchell Englander said before the vote. "Los Angeles has experimented with marijuana and has failed."

However, the ban could be temporary for some dispensaries. A motion made by Councilman Paul Koretz called for city staff to draft an ordinance that would allow for about 180 pot shops to be reopened that were in business before a moratorium was enacted several years ago. That motion isn't expected to be considered for several months.

After the vote Tuesday, some medical marijuana advocates shouted expletives, while others questioned where they were could get the drug in the future.

At least 178 California cities from Calistoga to Camarillo and 20 counties already have banned retail marijuana shops, according to the medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access.

Reflecting the murky language of the state's medical marijuana laws, a handful of dispensaries have successfully challenged such local prohibitions in court along with laws that merely sought to regulate dispensaries.

Most recently, an appeals court in Southern California struck down Los Angeles County's two-year-old ban on dispensaries, ruling that state law allows cooperatives and collectives to grow, store and distribute marijuana. But in a separate case, an appeals court said federal law pre-empts local municipalities from allowing pot clinics.

The hearing came a day after a priest, drug counselors and others decried crime and other social problems they say surround neighborhood marijuana dispensaries.

Among those who spoke at that gathering was a woman who complained about having to push her baby's stroller through clouds of marijuana smoke near dispensaries in her East Hollywood neighborhood.

[drnovlamas]

This decision is scandalous. Please go to AmericansforSafeAccess.org to fight this injustice.

[ucandoit2]

Over 50% of Americans want Marijuana legalized for recreational use, so if we really lived in a Democracy Marijuana would be legal to purchase by adults 21 and older out of stores. Do we really live in a Democracy?

[ucandoit2]

On the street a half an ounce of Marijuana sells for $25 by violent drug dealers who sell to kids and terrorize neighborhoods, so all a drug dealer needs is 4 customers a day to make $100; most likely they make way more money because a lot of people love Marijuana and it sells itself.

Now, of that money these violent drug dealers make from selling a half an ounce for $25 guess how much they pay in taxes? ZERO!!!!!!!!!

Which is less dangerous Alcohol, Cigarettes, Caffeine or Marijuana? MARIJUANA!!!!

[drnovlamas]

This is simnply junk propaganda. Please see AmericansforSafeAccess.org.

[morgana99]

This irresponsible, unsympathetic, backwards, uneducated decision should mean all out war on the jobs of our City Council members. YES, this display of disconnect with the voters and with general compassion should be seen as a clear sign that these people absolutely have the wrong jobs.

No confidence, lets never allow these people in office again:

Here's a list with contact info: Let em have it!

http://www.lacity.org/YourGovernment/CityCouncil/index.htm

[dnamj69]

When the city should be standing up for freedom, it bows to authoritarian corporate rule. Not good LA.

[hindsightis2020]

It is very important for the corporate fascist to preserve the market they create.... Just as William Hearst, DuPont, and Mellon did by pushing for hemp prohibition under the guise of "marihuana tax act" thus protecting their market from hemp. See Popular Mechanics 1938:
http://www.druglibrary.net/schaffer/hemp/history/newbilln.htm

Considering how much profit is generated by cannabis prohibition for the Mexican Cartels and American Corporate Fascists who purchase and own American politicians, especially California Republicans whom are literally owned by the Beer Wine and Liquor Industries, and the Casino's and Gambling Industry..... So American politicians vote to perpetuate prohibition!

Do you hear that sound? It is the Mexican Cartels celebrating
continued cannabis prohibition and NO assault weapon prohibition....
Let the party begin!!!!!

[tsigili]

Totally predictable.

[mewgato]

I'd rather alcohol was prohibited rather than harmless marijuana myself. In any event, I'll continue to smoke it and I don't drink or go to bars ever. No taxes from me on that. I'd go out and go to a pot smoking den, if they existed; but unfortunately that's not the world we live in. In any event, just like millions of other perfectly normal Americans are about to do, I think I'll take a bong hit now. And for all you drinkers out there, just remember that anything you can do drunk, I can do way better stoned. Have a pleasant evening!

[everyman5823]

what needs to happen is we rebel aginst the big phara and the poltical shill that push the big phara agenda on the american
people...you know us and newzeland are the only counterys IN THE WORLD that have big pharma trying to sell you pills every twenty
min

[Fill_F_Fill]

That's awesome karma.

[mrmouth]

These people have nobody to blame but themselves with the sheer amount of shops that opened up. They torpedoed their own arguments, and a subsequent victory years ago.

However, people on the other side of the argument shouldn't gloat, or assign words like "smarts" or "common sense" to this when alcohol is legal and drivers with a BAC of 0.08 (legal limit) are between 11-12 times more likely to cause a fatal car crash.

There is a lot of stupidity on both sides of the debate. And as usual the answer is right in the middle.