Writing Shotgun

BE CAREFUL INHALING DRAFT OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA ORDINANCE

Greggory MooreSat. November 07
 

(EDITOR’S NOTE: THIS STORY BY LOCAL FREELANCE WRITER GREGGORY MOORE LINKS TO ITS PLACE OF ORIGIN, LBREPORT.COM)

I’ve just had a look at the City of Long Beach’s proposed ordinance concerning medpot collectives. I’d like to note just three of the requirements therein:

 1) From 5.87.030(A): “The Medical Marijuana Collective shall provide [to the City] [t]he name, address, and telephone number of each Medical Marijuana Collective member, whether the member is a Qualified Patient or designated Primary Caregiver, and the name of the member(s) making the designation(s).”

At the August 4 City Council meeting, when the recommendations for these guidelines were submitted and included a proposed requirement that collectives “provide [to the City] a list of [. . . ] the qualified patients that belong to the collective,” Mayor Bob Foster assured me personally that the City takes patient privacy concerns very seriously; and after hearing my and others’ qualms about this point, Eighth District Councilmember Rae Gabelich stated flatly, “We don’t need to have a list of the names of the patients” and asked that this recommendation be removed. But since Second District Councilmember Suja Lowenthal didn’t second Gabelich’s request, as a matter of procedure, it remained.

[TO CONTINUE READING, CLICK HERE]

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

  • There is no good reason what so ever for the city to take names and pictures. The doctors already do this when you get your prescription. One big reason is that a patient may only use their prescription a short time and then never again. Why should their name make it to any kind of list, especially a public one?

    Placing a limitation on edibles shows a lack of understanding about the use of marijuana as medicine. Doctors actually recommend to patients not to smoke as it increases other health risks. Patients are encouraged to use edibles and lotions (for arthritis) rather than always relying on inhalation. Also some patients are unable to or deeply opposed to smoking.

    Really, beyond an an appropriate business license, no additional regulations are required for dispensaries. City of LB needs to respect patient privacy rights.
  • Good points, Ms. LB.

    The concern appears to be the dispensing of food products that have not been inspected by anyone with medical competence. I don't know if this concern is a particularly valid one or not but I'm hoping that the Council is also soliciting the professional medical advice of City Health Officer Dr. Calvet and others at our Department of Health and Human Services as they proceed in their deliberations.
  • Mike Ruehle
    I have friends that have a business license and make food products that are sold at various Costco's around the state and weekly at the swap meet at the Orange County fairgrounds. None of their edibles were inspected by anyone with medical competence or the Health Department.

    I know of several people who regularly sell their food products at the various farmers markets around the city and county without having their edibles inspected by anyone with medical competence or the Health Department.

    I'm sure there are numerous other examples of edibles being sold throughout the city without having been inspected by the Health Department.
  • Mr. Ruehle: I think your points are good ones, if not particularly applicable to medpot operations in Long Beach. Do any of your friends or others you know produce and dispense food products with marijuana or any other Schedule 1 drug in them?

    And just to clarify, I don't necessarily think this is a valid concern. In fact I was quite clear in saying that "I don't know if this concern is a particularly valid one".

    But what you or I think about it wont matter much if a majority of the Council thinks it's a valid concern.

    Agreed?
  • Mike Ruehle
    If anyone, you should know that what you and I and the rest of the general public thinks does indeed matter. City Council should be voted out and replaced in the April election if what the public thinks does not matter to them.

    What I want to hear from our Councilmembers is what they will be basing their ultimate decision upon. If they choose not to comment they should be removed from office. If they failed to solicit feedback from their constituency before making their decision, unlike what Councilwoman Schipske has done with her various blogs, they should be removed from office. If Council is representing themselves and not their constiuents, they need to be removed from office.
  • As is often the case, you extrapolate far beyond either my comments or their intent and you persist in your confrontational demeanor. Even when I agree with you, you feel the need to be combative. It's tiresome, to say the least.

    If you and I (not "the rest of the general public") feel this concern is not valid, but a majority of the Council feels that it is, guess what, they'll most likely take action on this concern and they would be right to do so.

    But even if our opinion finds favor with many others, yet not with a majority of the electorate, then guess what, the Council will most likely take action on this concern and they would STILL be right to do so.

    Our local elected officials' job is to serve the people of the City of Long Beach **AS REPRESENTED BY A MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORATE**, not as represented by Messers Ruehle and Greet. This is right and proper and fully in accordance with our Constitutional Republic form of government.

    It's also precisely why I constantly encourage more people to register and then to vote responsibly...so that our City government might become better representative of the people it is intended to serve.
  • Florence
    When did the City Prosecutor become a DOCTOR?

    I have a treatment plan with my current doctor who specifically recommended eatables and concentrates and to avoid smoking. It has a significantly different effect. It is utterly ridiculous that the city council would even entertain the idea from someone who has absolutly no medical background.
  • Charles M.
    Not a good idea to make names easily accessible.

    A patients has by law a right to privacy. All pertinent information is kept on file by a licensed medical doctor. This is how the current law works and if the police need to see the records, all they need is a simple court order.

    The current law was intended to cover all legitimate patients without forcing them to register with the state, city or county. Doing so could inadvertency put a patient as great risk of prosecution from the DEA as a federal crime. While recent statements from the white house have instructed the feds not to go after patients, a simple change in political tide could force thousands of patients into legal prosecution. All they would need is one giant list from the city.
  • I have an idea--How bout a list of all the old farts in city hall who use Viagra? Just as a public service warning for us ladies.
  • Steve
    I fail to see what the problem is with eatable forms of medication.

    I know someone who recently passed away from cancer and this was the only method they could use to reduce some of the pain. Since they never used Cannabis before, I could not imagine forcing them to use the most toxic delivery method possible just because people have a problem with eating vs. smoking medication. When you think about it, smoking is kind of weird way to force someone to feel better.

    I doubt my friend would have had the lung capacity to do so if it was his only choice. Please don’t make people to suffer.
  • Tony
    These ordinances fall short of just shutting all of these Evil dispeseries down but they are moving in the right direction. They need to publicly release the names of all those individuals who contribute to the deliquency of our community. Hooray for 5.87.030(A)Great job Suja! As far as 5.87.060 (A.6) it's very important for law enforcement to put a face with the names. We want to actually see who these individuals are who put our communities in danger. 5.87.090 (I) is fantastic because marijuana is poison and should not be treated like candy. Great job Robert Shannon! We applaud you!
  • howardx
    i love the continuing saga showing the deleterious effects of belief in iron age myths.
  • Tony, have you ever watched a loved one slowly die of the horrible side effects of chemotherapy? Because I have. Sometimes, it's not the cancer that kills, but the fact that the treatment makes the patient nauseous and unable to eat for weeks at a time. Have you ever watched a robust person drop nearly all their body weight over six months because they couldn't eat a bite? Held their hand for more than a year through awful treatments, only to watch them die anyway?

    Have you ever experienced the joy of watching that loved one dive into one of their last meals with gusto--all because of a bong hit? Because I have.

    We are talking about using marijuana as medicine here.

    Jesus taught compassion. Think about it. There is nothing delinquent or dangerous about a person using marijuana to relieve medical conditions--small and large.

    Calling marijuana evil is plain old dumb.
  • Crystal
    Sorry Charly, if you got your way, I would just go to LA or the Valley and buy my medication there. I will come back to LB and smoke as much as I need. The only loss here will be hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax mony that will go to Los Angeles instead of Long Beach.
  • Dave Wielenga
    You have a complete right to your opinion, of course, but what I find a little inconsistent is that you applaud the disclosure of the full names of people who are patients of marijuana dispensaries---yet don't have whatever it takes for you to disclose your own name here. How truly committed can you be to your point of view?
  • I believe it would be entirely inappropriate for legitimate medpot operations to be required (absent a valid subpoena) to disclose the names of their patient-members to any City entity other than, perhaps, the Health Department, and only then to a Health Department office that is, likewise, restricted from disclosing that information under HIPAA.

    Although it's not very likely that anyone operating a medpot clinic will be a licensed medical professional, I still feel that HIPAA-related (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) patient privacy protections should apply to legitimate medpot operations, assuming they meet the criteria established by that act (i.e: 1. Furnishes, bills or receives payment for, health
    care in the normal course of business and, 2. Transmits (sends) any covered transactions electronically).

    Oakland was able to skin this particular cat, it seems, by requiring legitimate medpot operations to keep records referring only to a patient number that is issued by the County. In this way the County maintains accountability and the medpot operations assure appropriate patient privacy.

    Since L.A. County doesn't seem ready to provide this sort of support, perhaps our own Health Department could?
  • Rich
    There is no need to add more buracracy by requiring people to register with the Health Department. Last I heard they were cutting staff and services.

    The law already requires all patients information to be kept on file by the qualifed licened medical doctor who gave the recomendation. A simple court order is all that is needed to inspect.
  • Rich: Thanks for the comment! Unfortunately the law you mention doesn't assist the City in regulating medpot operations, which is, I'm sure you understand, the entire reason for this draft ordinance.

    I'm not anxious to increase the workload at our Health Department either but, since L.A. County is not as pro-active on this issue as Alameda County has been (in issuing medpot patient I.D. numbers), and since we do have our own Health Department, perhaps we, at the municipal level, can use the tools at hand to strike a reasonable balance between patient confidentiality and effective regulation of medpot operations.
  • Mike Ruehle
    I can buy bullets for a gun, pornographic magazine/movies and a bottle of Jack Daniels all in the same day without having to register or reveal my name. Yet, our City Council wants to know the name of every person who wants to buy med-pot. In my opinion, our City Council is focused on the trees and can not see the forest.
  • Bob Hunt
    I am very disappointed in my councilmember Suja Lowenthal who has not come out sooner to directly back the removal of the list of patient names. What for? Dose the city have the same access to people with HIV? People on Chemotherapy? Besides being an outright violation of HIPPA laws, it will open the gate to backdoor witch hunts.

    The promises of the Mayer even if honored, will only last till the next election. We need to demand fair and equal treatment as patients. No different than someone going to the pharmacy would want their private information treated.

    FYI, I can walk into a pharmacy in long beach and buy medication like Cold-EEZE which looks and tastes like candy. There is no reason to treat eatable marijuana any differently unless you just want to force sick people to smoke.
  • Steve
    I fail to see what the problem is with eatable forms of medication.

    I know someone who recently passed away from cancer and this was the only method they could use to reduce some of the pain. Since they never used Cannabis before, I could not imagine forcing them to use the most toxic delivery method possible just because people have a problem with eating vs. smoking medication. When you think about it, smoking is kind of weird way to force someone to feel better.

    I doubt my friend would have had the lung capacity to do so if it was his only choice. Please don’t make people to suffer.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 

© 2007-2008 Seven Days Publishing LLC.