We received word today that a group of residents will be filing a lawsuit against The City of Los Angeles, various Ocean Front Walk businesses and building owners / landlords over violations of Los Angeles Municipal Code 45.19. The specifics of the code at issue are as follows:
- No person shall operate a business establishment where drug paraphernalia is displayed for sale, offered for sale or sold, within 500 feet of any school, religious institution, public library or public park.
- The distance specified in this subsection shall be the horizontal distance measured in a straight line from the property line of a school, religious institution, public library or public park to the closest exterior structural wall of the business establishment without regard to intervening structures.
Last Summer LAPD made strides against the Medical Marijuana “doctors offices” from hawking on Ocean Front Walk. A transition in staff has seen seemingly no enforcement in hawking, which has returned to its aggressive and overwhelming presence. Now aware of a clear and direct violation of laws designed specifically to keep the presence of drug related items away from children - local residents are now no longer relying on LAPD, and are taking up a lawsuit against the City of LA and the business owners involved directly.
Frustration has brewed over the dispensaries, who are supposed to grow all of the “product” that they sell inside their establishment. The grotesque deviation of the rules of operation leave opponents of medical marijuana fuming, and the City Attorney hogtied over how to enforce against entities that, as one City Attorney put it, “have unbelievable amounts of money at their disposal.” Helen, a regular at the Venice Beach paddle tennis courts is backing the new lawsuit. “I cannot understand how The City and LAPD let this happen. When you look at the age of the people shopping in those stores, you realize it appeals to a youthful crowd. It should not be here, not near the park”, she said. Many residents feel that the pipe shops contribute to the unsavory element that perpetuates a crime-driven drug subculture at Venice Beach. “LAPD just doesn’t seem to be able to focus on more than one issue at a time”, commented Helen.
The 500 ft designation would make Pacific Ave the nearest that a “glass” or pipe shop could be to Venice Beach Park.
The entire municipal code is as follows. Pretty amazing that the shops have been able to operate so long despite this glaring violation of the law, but then again this is Venice right? I guess now the lesson has finally been learned that the only way to get anything done is to sue the City. It will be interesting to see how the building owners, who are also being named in the suit, will react. Apparently the language “No person shall operate a business establishment…” includes the owners of the property who lease it to the businesses as well.
Going to be a HOT SUMMER! Here’s the code:
SEC. 45.19.5. RESTRICTIONS ON LOCATIONS WHERE DRUG PARAPHERNALIA MAY BE SOLD.
(Added by Ord. No. 174,793, Eff. 10/6/02.)
A. Purpose. Regulating the location where business establishments that display or offer for sale drug paraphernalia is a reasonable and necessary means to protect and promote the general welfare of the children and minors of the City of Los Angeles exposed to illegal drugs.
The regulations promote the general welfare and temperance of children and minors and are intended to help reduce the illegal consumption and purchase of illegal drugs by children and minors by limiting their exposure to drug paraphernalia.
B. Definitions. The following words and phrases, whenever used in this section, shall be construed as defined in this section. Words and phrases not defined here shall be construed as defined in Sections 11.01, and 12.03 of this Code.
1. “Drug paraphernalia,” including but not limited to one or more of those items identified in that list set forth in Subdivision 3 below, shall mean any device designed primarily for use by individuals for the smoking or ingestion of marijuana, hashish, hashish oil, cocaine, or any other “controlled substance,” as that term is defined in the Health and Safety Code of the State of California.
2. A device “designed primarily for” the smoking or ingestion set forth in Subdivision 1 above is a device, which has been fabricated, constructed, altered, adjusted, or marked especially for use in the smoking or ingestion of marijuana, hashish, hashish oil, cocaine, or any other “controlled substance,” and is peculiarly adapted to that purposes by virtue of a distinctive feature or combination of features associated with drug paraphernalia, notwithstanding that it might also be possible to use the device for some other purpose.
3. Includable Items or Devices:
(a) Metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic pipes, with or without screens, permanent or otherwise, heads, or punctured metal bowls;
(b) A device constructed so as to prevent the escape of smoke into the air and to channel smoke into a chamber where it may be accumulated to permit inhalation or ingestion of larger quantities of smoke than would otherwise be possible, whether the device is known as a “bong,” or otherwise;
(c) A smokable pipe constructed with a receptacle or container in which water or other liquid may be placed into which smoke passes and is cooled in the process of being inhaled or ingested;
(d) A smokable pipe which contains a heating unit, whether the device is known as an “electric pipe,” or otherwise;
(e) A device constructed so as to permit the simultaneous mixing and ingestion of smoke and nitrous oxide or other compressed gas, whether the device is known as a “buzz bomb,” or otherwise;
(f) A canister, container or other device with a tube, nozzle or other similar arrangement attached and so constructed as to permit the forcing of accumulated smoke into the user’s lungs under pressure;
(g) A device for holding a cigarette, whether the device is known as a “roach clip,” or otherwise;
(h) A spoon for ingestion through the nose;
(i) A straw or tube for ingestion through the nose or mouth.
4. “Public Library” - A place in which literary, musical, artistic, or reference materials, such as books, manuscripts, newspapers, recordings, or films, are kept for use but not for sale, which is under the control, operation or management of the City Board of Library Commissioners.
5. “Public Park” - A park, playground, swimming pool, beach, pier, reservoir, golf course or similar athletic field within the City of Los Angeles, which is under the control, operation or management of the City Board of Recreation and Park Commissioners or the County Department of Beaches.
6. “Religious Institution” - A building that is used primarily for religious worship and related religious activities.
7. “Schools” - An institution of learning for minors, whether public or private, which offers instruction in those courses of study required by the California Education Code or which is maintained pursuant to standards set by the State Board of Education. This definition includes kindergarten, elementary, junior high, senior high or any special institution of learning under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Education, but it does not include a vocational or professional institution or an institution of higher education, including a community or junior college, college or university.
C. Prohibitions.
1. No person shall operate a business establishment where drug paraphernalia is displayed for sale, offered for sale or sold, within 500 feet of any school, religious institution, public library or public park.
2. The distance specified in this subsection shall be the horizontal distance measured in a straight line from the property line of a school, religious institution, public library or public park to the closest exterior structural wall of the business establishment without regard to intervening structures.
;
Venice people are so funny,
Just because something has been going on in Venice for 20 years doesn’t mean its a good thing or it will keep going Kristen..
I hope this lawsuit make the boardwalk a better place.
I don’t if anyone has done this yet but just for fun I searched on Google maps and opened multiple windows for comparison every park, church, daycare, school etc. Guess what? There will not be any smoker’s articles stores under this ordinance in Venice Beach; anywhere. Check it out for yourself!
Heck, there won’t be any in L.A. period there is like a zillion schools man.
From September 13th press in Boise;
“Prosecutors say it is against federal law to sell paraphernalia that is intended for drug use, regardless of whether they say it is designed for tobacco use only.”
Glass pipes, bongs, acrylic, wooden, bamboo, vaporizers, stone pipes, one hitters, chillums all of it. Everything sold in these smoke shops is illegal period. Call the D.E.A. and confirm it, nothing sold in head shops is legal under federal law. Each store owner faces 3 years and a $250,000.00 fine, manufacturers are looking at 5-15 years. Any pipe maker or bong maker shipping across State lines faces additional charges under another part of the statute. Every store owner I have ever met that got charged got convicted or entered a plea to avoid jail time forfeiting all their personal assets as well as giving up their suppliers.
I worked on legislation and got the opportunity to speak with people at some of these agencies and was informed that U.S. Customs has lists of every store and every manufacturer with a focus on California as the prime source for drug pipes and that the only thing standing between a massive, national series of raids was the current President not wanting to give the Justice Department a mandate. You are finished under the next Republican President. Mark my words.
Uhhhh……I’m not much of a fan, but just want to point out that many of the head shops have been in business in Venice for the more than 20 years I have lived here and probably much longer than that. I’m not going to hold my breath for the next “Republican President” to change anything.
..and medical marijuana was going to be here to stay but the Justice Department is routing every single company in the business. You know what they did first right? Informed banks that processing payments of any kind for operators was illegal money laundering and you can bet head shop owner’s banks will be getting contacted just the same. Just a matter of time now.
My point was that seeking to address what is fundamentally an economic problem via a lawsuit — that we’re all now going to have to pay for through our tax dollars — is a wasteful and ultimately ineffective way to try to clean up the boardwalk. If you want classier businesses on the boardwalk, then you need to attract tourists with more money and more class to the area. Until then, the businesses who are willing to set up shop are those whose customers are primarily seeking fast food and cheap crap (Chinese bongs, $5 t-shirts, posters of Marilyn Monroe holding a gun, etc.). You’re not going to change that through a lawsuit.
How CAN we change that? Well, for starters, we need to make the boardwalk a nicer place to visit, aesthetically. We need more public trash cans and they need to be emptied more frequently, we need the police helicopters to go bye-bye, and we need the homeless encampments to disappear, we need to ban the stores from blasting loud horrible music out onto the boardwalk, and we need to ban vendors from hocking their goods in the middle of the walking path (e.g., the guys with their CDs and the employees of the mmj clinics), just to name a few.
I want to write a check to help.
Finally, Venice might be better place,
Yay for the lawsuit. Absolutely sickened when I walk with kids at the plethora of hawkers on the boardwalk. I am totally in agreement with medical marijuana but this is a dirty business with no respect for the laws. I know way too many underage kids with cards - why why why - loading up and selling to younger kids.
There are more medical marijuana crap places in Venice that the usually ubiquitous manicure/pedicure shopfronts in other neighborhoods.
The hawkers are still trying to seduce passerby’s into their seedy whiten your teeth, get a little botox, here’s some weed nasty storefronts.
I am so angry.
I’m pretty sure people will not turn to meth because they can’t buy a Homer Simpson bong on Ocean Front Walk. I, for one, would be happy to not have my 4 year old browsing at cartoon character pipes on our way to the playground.
Well Kristen, if you knew anything you would know the playground is the opposite way..and what kind of parent are you taking your kids to venice beach? After all venice isn’t famous as a haven for rockstars to go party. So let’s go let our kids play on the playground where some hiv positive transient was sleeping and pissing all over where our kids are swinging. Better yet, what in the world are you doing letting your kids watch an adult oriented cartoon like the simpsons?? Go to malibu if you wanna put your yuppie kid on a leash and take him for a walk.
Bartholemew, you are the one who is mistaken about the location of the playgrounds. There are multiple in Venice along the beach and to get there, you must walk through the crowds on the boardwalk (so that you don’t have pedestrians on the bike path). If you had children, you’d know that being able to walk quickly to a park near your home is the only way you get to a park. You don’t load up your kids and drive in summer traffic and heat to find one, not to mention the waste of doing so. We LIVE here. Actually LIVE here and should be able to enjoy the beach and parks. My kid loves watching the skateboarders, seeing the murals, listening to the drums and we appreciate so much of which the Venice beach and boardwalk has to offer. But he shouldn’t have to be propositioned to see the doctor on his way. Oh, and he’s 2. The idiots they hire to promote the shops think it’s funny to try to hit up babies. You’d also know that a kid may not know who Homer Simpson is or watch the show, but that regardless he looks like a cartoon. The same kind of cartoons that kids do watch. A lawsuit may not be the best approach as Sarah points out, but we do need some clean up to make the neighborhood safer for both the residents and the tourists and visitors. There are plenty of locations, that are vacant and ready for tenants, for medical marijuana business to operate from nearby that aren’t so close to schools and parks. Why don’t you put yourself on a leash and take yourself to a walk to the library to educate yourself a bit before you lash out with words that don’t contribute to any thoughts or points on the matter.
Well said Megan..
Thank you so much..
I walked into one of the shops the other day and asked about the lawsuit and this store manager was very upset by it and told me he will have to move his business to another located outside the park area..That made me smile..
I am not sure if anyone realizes this but everything sold in these stores is illegal under federal law. Contact the D.E.A. or U.S. Customs or the Justice Department and ask. No pipes made from glass are legal for any reason anywhere in the United States and no one who has ever been charged under these laws has been found not guilty. It doesn’t matter if you claim they are for tobacco or not, the courts determine illegality based on prior court precedence and law enforcement testimony per federal law.
i was born and raised 1/2 block from the old Venice police dept, Venice will always be a bit “seedy” and will have both those who have and those who don’t have nested near each other, we need to address the “drug problem” as a whole instead of pecking at each other.
Perhaps we all need to look at the damage caused by RX drugs, legal spirits and an FDA that is in the pocket of those huge companies (multi-billion dollars) who have twisted the truth to secure new customers both young and old, bottom line is that greed will drive the actions of a few individuals to look past the harm caused to us all no matter what we choose to rant at or whom we call names.
Voting with our pocket books and feet will cause change, lawsuits and unkind words will only do damage to our friends and neighbors.
Perhaps GT could utter some dialog instead of casting a wide net of generalities at another neighbor, Helen has a viewpoint she is entitled too voice and so does Sarah.
Whats your Viewpoint GT?
LIVING HERE FOR 12 YEARS… ITS ABOUT TIME!!! GET RID OF THEM…
Whoever is doing this - thank you. THANK YOU.
Yay homeowners!!!!
I’m not sure if I should feel sorry for Helen (the filer of the lawsuit) because her thinking is so muddled and confused, or if I should fear her maliciousness. Either way, her lawsuit will cause more harm than good, doing even more to encourage people to use more dangerous drugs like alcohol and meth (the other drugs that are widely offered on the boardwalk), rather than marijuana. Also, Helen, if beachgoers thought the pipe shops were so unsavory, then how do they stay in business? I think bigots who file frivolous lawsuits are unsavory.
Sarah, you should fear your own stupidity.