Connect with us

Business

A League of Their Own

The League of California Cities represents a huge obstacle to reforming marijuana policy
Medical cannabis patients and their allies face a little-known yet powerful obstacle to safely accessing a legal medicine in their communities.

The Sacramento-based lobby League of California Cities is using its enormous influence to block dispensary regulation in the State Assembly, and undermine safe access at the local level.

They’ve sued to suppor

Published

on

The League of California Cities represents a huge obstacle to reforming marijuana policy

Medical cannabis patients and their allies face a little-known yet powerful obstacle to safely accessing a legal medicine in their communities.

The Sacramento-based lobby League of California Cities is using its enormous influence to block dispensary regulation in the State Assembly, and undermine safe access at the local level.

They’ve sued to support bans on growing medical marijuana as well as dispensing the life-saving plant. Critics say the League’s jaundiced, conservative perspective on medical cannabis also infects local city attorneys and county counsels who rely on the League for expert advice on such matters.

“Our complaint is they’ve pretty much ignored basic Proposition 215 rights in their pursuit of maximum local control to the point where there isn’t any kind of safe access at all,” says Dale Gieringer, head of California NORML.

“Once you ban dispensaries, once you ban growing and everything else, what’s left?” he asks. “Nothing. They don’t care about that particular aspect. Mostly they care about is what they can get away with before the court. But that’s the nature of their business.”

Dorothy Holzem, associate legislative representative for the League says the League believes the value of medical marijuana as a treatment option is “uncertain.” The League supports the police crackdown on unregulated dispensaries, and believes cities should have a right to ban collectives and dispensaries.

 

FORCE OF NATURE

This backward position is hugely powerful in the Sacramento and in city halls across California, and activists need to co-opt or neutralize the League if they’re going to get legislation passed.

“They are very powerful in Sacramento, of course,” says Gieringer, “because practically every lawmaker in Sacramento has been involved in local government before moving there. And therefore has been a member of or affiliated with the League of Cities.”

“I would say it’s next to impossible to get anything through in Sacramento that they strongly disapprove of.”

The League of California Cities’ rise is awe-inspiring. The 111-year-old League has come to represent the leading voice for about 469 of California’s 482 cities. The League has 16 regional offices and a staff of about 60 people. Annual League dues scale to city size, with small cities paying about $23,500 per year in dues.

The League first convened to lobby for state and federal pork, and lobbying—along with spreading best practices among cities—remains its primary goals to this day. The League—like many institutions—is also slow to change. California voters approved medical marijuana almost 16 years ago and doctors at state research centers concur with them, yet the League remains “uncertain.” The industry’s rapid progression since then has given the League heartburn.

In 2004, the California legislature approved SB 420, extending medical marijuana immunities to associations of people collectively cultivating and distributing the drug. After the 2008 release of then-Attorney General Jerry Brown’s guidelines for such associations, and the 2009 “Ogden Memo,” storefront dispensaries appeared in most cities in the state.

The unregulated dispensary boom led to a federal crackdown on marijuana businesses beginning in October. Since then, some operators and activists have called for increased dispensary regulation statewide, which could mollify federal prosecutors.

 

AB 2312

This summer, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano introduced AB 2312, a bill to regulate the nascent industry by creating a medical marijuana regulatory board. AB 2312 would have mandated one dispensary per 50,000 people per city, unless a vote of the people instituted a ban.

“That’s not popular with the city government poobahs who would rather make the decisions themselves and don’t want to go through the expense of holding an election,” says Gieringer.

Holzem said the people’s choice provision would cost $500,000 per special election and cash-strapped cities don’t have it. Moreover, “people’s choice” runs counter to the League’s goals of concentrating power with city leaders, not the populace.

“Are city councils elected to make decisions and represent the voice of the people or are they elected to do paperwork and to turn it back to the voters?” Holzem asks.

The all-powerful League opposed letting the people of each city vote, and got AB 2312 changed at the last minute, so that a city council or a county board of supervisors could ban dispensaries on their own.

Activists were furious at the amendment. The amended AB 2312 would have codified storefront bans —which are currently in legal limbo.

“The [League] was the main reason that Ammiano’s medical marijuana regulation bill got watered down at the end to get past the Assembly,” Gieringer says.

Ammiano pulled the bill from the Senate, saying he’d bring a different version back in the winter.

 

THE RIFT

And therein lies the rift between the League of California Cities and actual Californians: marijuana is a popular issue, now more than ever. It is an issue where the people lead, and the leaders timidly follow, and the institutions representing the consensus of leaders come in dead last.

The League had many issues with AB 2312 and people’s choice was “just the tip of the iceberg,” says Holzem.

A pending California Supreme Court ruling on the legality of dispensaries and bans renders industry regulation premature, the League feels.

Moreover, marijuana is still federally illegal. The League—in its publicized legal advice—has been telling city officials that they could, technically, be jailed for administering medical marijuana programs. The League fails to mention that such a thing has never happened.

One gets the impression the cautious League would prefer to stand pat on medical marijuana until the federal government legalizes pot first. That is, until hell freezes over.

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *