You know what I consider criminal Pat West?...the fact that Long Beach paid a shitload of cash for your inauguration/welcoming party. How far can a city have it's head up it's ass? This shit is becoming straight up ridiculous. I'm throwing you in the Suja Lowenthal boneyard. (and for publicity purposes I'm sure you'll be "fake smiling" all the way). Long Beach needs to bleach these officials. It is criminal that you are robbing us of tax revenue when (during these times) we need it. Urghh.

Great job guys. Glad to know that time and effort was expended on this. Meanwhile, the murderer of Melody Ross is still out there.

It's those EVIL marijuana dispenseries that killed Melody Ross. Marijuana is the gateway drug. I say Long Beach dedicate all of it's budget and resources to shut all those dispenseries down! Stop those killers who were on marijuana!

Actually…… A twelve year study by the University of Pittsburg dispels the myth that Marijuana is a “gateway drug”. This according to the American Journal of Psychiatry.

Whereas alcohol is readily available and enjoyed recreationally by adults in front of their kids, it is the first drug most kids try. Hence, it is the true gateway drug......close all the bars!

That was the stupidest s#!t ever. Sorry for the lost of Melody Ross. But weed was not the problem poor security was the problem. These shops make plenty of money if they paid for more arm gaurds then mybe that would not have happen.

Since the cops don't even have a suspect this comment will be hard to prove.

Hello Tony,
I would love to include your comments in our Letters to the Editor section, if you would please send them--with a full name--to letters@thedistrictweekly.com

Anybody else, too!

What are you smoking! Marijuana has nothing to do with Melody Ross and you have no evidence or facts to back up your claim. Most people smoking marijuana just want to stay home on the couch and eat a bag of Cheetos. The only EVIL here is your blatant disrespect for the facts and your callous attempt to use someone’s death to push your self righteous anti-marijuana agenda.

Less than a year ago, staff reported to city council there were over 100 illegal check cashing businesses operating in Long Beach without Long Beach business licenses. This is contrary to med-pot dispensaries for which Long Beach does not have a specific license. I'm curious whether the city ever went after the 100+ illegal check cashing businesses or whether med-pot is just a good target during an election year.

The City did place a citywide moratorium on check cashing businesses as I recall. Whether or not City officials went after those that were not properly licensed to operate is another matter.

If they did not, they most certainly should have.

So why aren't you advocating that these 100+ illegal check cashing businesses be shut down? Go get them Officer Greet.

Mr. Ruehle: I don't know how much more clearly I can answer you other than to repeat, yet again, what I've already stated twice before:

"It's my personal hope that all businesses, regardless of genre, that operate fraudulently or without a license be fully investigated, promptly closed and their operators prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

Make it happen police officer Greet. After all, you are in the law enforcement business.

Every one answers to someone, Mr. Ruehle. Discuss your desires with our duly-elected Council. If they agree with your approach, I'm sure they'll make that very clearly known to those to whom I answer.

It's fortunate for Long Beach resident citizens that you Officer Greet do indeed report to someone who is able to put a collar on your interpretations and enforcement of the law. Without that collar, nearly every resident association would be prosecuted and shut down for operating a business in Long Beach without a business license.

Hmmm...might this not have been a more accurate title: "City Targets Business that Falisified it's Business License Application and Unlawfully Dispensed Marijuana"?

The current title presents the fallacious appearance that a marijuana dispensary in Long Beach had a business license and that said dispensary violated that license, when the fact is that *no* marijuana dispensary in Long Beach is currently lawfully licensed. True?

In addition to the above, I'm just so glad that the City is vigorously pursuing a policy that no business in Long Beach violates the terms of its permit. (Maybe not???)

Mr. McCabe: We are in full agreement that the City should scrupulously enforce all of it's business licensing laws, regardless of violation or type of business involved.

But is it your assertion that if we do not enforce all of them, that we then should not enforce any of them?

Not at all. But it is clear to me that the City rarely looks for violations, even on a spot basis. They should go out and look, at least on a spot basis, as to many high neighborhood impact permittees like bars among others. But in this case the City almost certainly went looking for this violation and will continue looking for more, in these cases of probably low neighborhood impact. This is disparate enforcement.

I fully agree! And said as much in my original comment to you.

And let me be clear (because apparently some feel I haven't been so far) "The City should scrupulously enforce all of it's business licensing laws, regardless of violation or type of business involved." If limited resources and personnel make spot-checking necessary, then such should be done in a fair and equal manner, inclusive of all types of businesses and not merely these.

If this closure of "The Green Nurse Collective" proves to be the example of disparate enforcement that you fear, then I would say it's wrong to engage in such. Just as it is wrong for the federal executive branch to engage in disparate enforcement of our federal drug laws. They, like our local business licensing laws, should be fully and fairly enforced throughout the jurisdictions in which they apply.

Either that or they should be repealed altogether so that the Tenth Amendment might truly apply in this case as it rightly should in this and so very many others.

Greggory feels that something "smells awfully fishy" here and your comments seem to indicate that you do as well. Based upon your considerable experience with the manner in which the City does business in the legal realm, how might one go about proving or disproving such a concern?

I don't in fact have a lot of experience with criminal prosecution. But what little I know informs my language above about "disparate enforcement." "Selective enforcement" as a criminal law term of art referring to due process and the tenth amendment is a somewhat different animal. A defense of "selective enforcement" usually requires targeting an individual or group in an arbitrary manner. The most obvious examples of an arbitrary targeting is prosecution only of persons of one race or religion and the like. I do not know if an extreme example such as abandoning enforcement of virtually all permit violations except one narrow group is arbitrary in the way the courts have defined selective enforcement.

I do know that the kind of example I just described is both unethical from the prosecutor's point of view and bad government.

Thanks, sir. And can you offer any suggestions as to how one might go about proving or disproving the existence of such an example in Long Beach in this case?

Obviously, if the prosecution is motivated by animosity towards HIV positive individuals, who I assume are the largest single group dependant on the medical advantages of marijuana, that would present a case of prohibited selective enforcement. Same thing regarding an animus against gay men who are the largest (?) group of AIDS diagnosed individuals. MAYBE it would be enough if the prosecution was motivated by an animus for the laws of the State of California that allows the sale of marijuana under certain circumstances.

Understood, sir, thank you. Clearly the challenge then is not so much in hypothesizing about potential prosecutorial motivations but, rather, going about proving or disproving them, should such become necessary.

As for me, I prefer that we enforce all of our laws as fully and fairly as possible in all cases. The argument that we should not enforce a law in one case because we have neglected to enforce it in another, serves as little more than misdirection.

It could certainly speak to whether the law should remain on the books at all, since it really serves little purpose if it cannot be shown to be applicable, equally, to all. But such is rightly within the purview of a given legislature and not that of the prosecution or of the defense.

If Party "A" is guilty of violating a given law, then whether Party "B" is also guilty of violating that same law is not particularly relevant to the guilt of Party "A". Much though Party "A" would have it so.

Whether or not the Prosecutor's action violates the law against selective enforcement (and no one can tell that one way or the other right now) his prosecution appears to me to be unethical. He is going after something that is not against the law in California because he doesn't agree with that law. The permit violation allegation is clearly a "cover" for an effort to ban the sale of marijuana in Long Beach. As I have said, the City doesn't even make spot checks of even high neighborhood impact permits. They almost certainly went looking for this.