Los Angeles Starts Forcing Marijuana Dispensaries Shut and Threatening Landlords
Measure D institutes medical marijuana protectionism for early shops.


Almost a year ago, Los Angeles residents approved Measure D, a ballot initiative to cap the number of medical marijuana dispensaries within the city and introduce a whole host of regulations. The cap was based on a cutoff date several years ago, so hundreds of dispensaries that opened after that date were retroactively made illegal and told to shut down. As I've pointed out, though the measure was sold as a way to halt an alleged glut of dispensaries, it's clearly a tactic to protected older, more established shops.
A year later, the city is now trying to enforce the ordinance and shut down dispensaries. City Attorney Mark Feuer announced this week that the city has managed to shut down more than 100 shops. How they're approaching the "problem" is likely to make your skin crawl. From the Los Angeles Times:
Feuer said he was now stepping up that work, hiring two new attorneys who would exclusively tackle prosecutions under Proposition D, the measure passed by voters last spring. Staffers are also focusing more attention on real estate professionals and landlords renting space to marijuana dispensaries, providing them with a new brochure that warns of steep fines and jail time for breaking the rules.
Wondering how the hell they can get away with that, I went back and looked through the full text (pdf) for Measure D. Sure enough, in the section outlawing the establishment of new medical marijuana dispensaries, it also includes a ban on "renting, leasing, or otherwise permitting a medical marijuana business to occupy or use a location, vehicle, or other mode of transportation."
Even with the closures, Feuer is still trying to stand against the tide. The Times notes that even after the passage of Proposition D, "more than 300 medical marijuana collectives have registered to pay business taxes, including nearly 200 with no previous record in the tax system, according to city finance officials."
To add to the absurdity of the city's attempt to manage this situation it has created, the city finance department is sending out registration certificates to these illegal businesses anyway if they apply.
However, the city attorney said there were no plans to ask the finance department to stop issuing those certificates to new dispensaries. Attorney David Welch, who represents a marijuana dispensary that is challenging its prosecution under the measure, argues that the city is "creating confusion."
The city "should take charge, determine who qualifies" and only allow those who do to get certificates, Welch said.
It's not clear in the story whether the city is collecting fees from these pot dispensaries applying for registration and then being told they cannot operate. The city's finance department has an online registration process that warns that some applying businesses may have to pay a registration fee, but it doesn't state which ones.
Los Angeles put together a list of the pot dispensaries that it believes qualify to remain under the new rules, but they're not even sure about that. The Times notes, "Officials previously released a list of more than 100 shops believed to have met some of the requirements, but Feuer has stressed that being on that list does not afford any legal protection."
To recap: The city of Los Angeles has a list of medical marijuana dispensaries it thinks may legally remain open but it's not sure, and it's accepting registration applications from medical marijuana dispensaries that it pretty much knows aren't legal to open. Thank heavens the city stepped in to "organize" the medical marijuana marketplace.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Dictators gonna dictate, yo.
It's not clear in the story whether the city is collecting fees from these pot dispensaries applying for registration and then being told they cannot operate.
So basically it's an extortion racket, just like everything else governments everywhere do.
They can't even get the extorion right. If they pay the fee, you're supposed to not shut them down.
Geez.
The real problem with the modern state, parasites who don't realize you are not supposed to kill the host.
But if they pay a HIGHER fee, they can remain open. You know it will come to that.
Hey, if you let them actually open the store, you won't be able to get them to pay the application fee again by telling them that you've "fixed the mistake" but, so sorry, they need to apply all over again.
It was Libertinearism that submerged LA in a sea of marijuana stores. Thank God the SoCons and their War on Drugs are fighting to pull the city out of the abyss.
It was Libertinearism that submerged LA in a sea of marijuana stores. Thank God the SoCons and their War on Drugs are fighting to pull the city out of the abyss.
You say this sarcastically, but I can almost hear LA pols touting this in their campaigns.
I'd be surprised if you could find enough SoCons in LA to fill a phone booth.
Agreed. But the average stoner Angeleno will blame SoCons, or Republicans, or "The Man". Never realizing of course, that the progressive nudniks they continue to support are the same people who are putting the boot on their throat.
Leave no stone unturned, no door unkicked.
Staffers are also focusing more attention on real estate professionals and landlords renting space to marijuana dispensaries, providing them with a new brochure that warns of steep fines and jail time for breaking the rules.
Tell me again how government differs from a protection racket?
Tell me again how government differs from a protection racket?
I had that discussion with someone a month or two ago; protection agreements aren't necessarily a bad thing when actually limited by things like ... say ... a constitution?
Or, even better, the ability to change your protection service provider.
Just roll with it dude.
http://www.Anon-VPN.com